The government\u2019s brief in opposition to defendant\u2019s motion to suppress suggests that the CI is a potential witness here, so the government is ordered to disclose his or her ID. Disclosure is enough. The court won\u2019t go so far as to order the government to make the CI available for an interview. United States v. Finch, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23369 (D.Minn. Feb. 9, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It was objectively reasonable to make a traffic stop for not signaling a turn pulling out of a private parking lot. The statute isn\u2019t clear that\u2019s an offense. State v. Stewart<\/a>, 2022-Ohio-199, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 311 (8th Dist. Jan. 27, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court credits the officers that defendant didn\u2019t stop before a crosswalk at a stop sign, and that\u2019s a traffic offense. They discussed on bodycam the smell of marijuana as they approached the car. That was probable cause under the automobile exception. United States v. Sanders, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23336 (E.D.Tex. Feb. 9, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The government\u2019s brief in opposition to defendant\u2019s motion to suppress suggests that the CI is a potential witness here, so the government is ordered to disclose his or her ID. Disclosure is enough. The court won\u2019t go so far as … Continue reading