A protective sweep of defendant\u2019s apartment was reasonable on the totality despite the officers not hearing anyone inside. United States v. Turner, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144215 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cAt no point did Veney voluntarily submit to a show of authority. He therefore was not seized until Officer Torres blocked his path. By then, Officer Torres could see the bulge of Veney’s gun in his waistband, and Veney does not dispute that the bulge gave Officer Torres the reasonable suspicion required for the stop and frisk that followed. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27 (1968).\u201d United States v. Veney<\/a>, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 22464 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 12, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Fourth Amendment protects against too much indefiniteness in a subpoena duces tecum, and this one wasn\u2019t. Walsh v. Alight Sols. LLC<\/a>, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 22470 (7th Cir. Aug. 12, 2022).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A protective sweep of defendant\u2019s apartment was reasonable on the totality despite the officers not hearing anyone inside. United States v. Turner, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144215 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2022). \u201cAt no point did Veney voluntarily submit to … Continue reading