Defendant\u2019s stop was for not having an LPN and a cracked windshield. There was a temporary permit for the vehicle and the crack wasn\u2019t obstructing vision. Bringing in a drug dog for a sniff of car was unreasonable. The officer \u201cand his comrades could have quickly, and easily, confirmed the validity of the permits if he or those assisting him wanted to. But they focused on something else — making a drug bust.\u201d United States v. Hernandez, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195744 (D.S.D. Oct. 22, 2022) (R&R).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Aside from the traffic violation with furtive movements, \u201cthe Jeep was idling in an area with a surge of gun violence and narcotics activity.\u201d United States v. Wiggins, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195688 (D.N.J. Oct. 27, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant has no standing to challenge the search of a codefendant\u2019s cell phone. United States v. Major, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195699 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 26, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court of appeals lacked certiorari jurisdiction to decide whether forced production of a passcode to a smartphone violated the Fifth Amendment. Therefore, there is no appellate jurisdiction here. The question can be answered by a direct appeal. State v. Garcia, 2022 Fla. LEXIS 1624 (Oct. 27, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s stop was for not having an LPN and a cracked windshield. There was a temporary permit for the vehicle and the crack wasn\u2019t obstructing vision. Bringing in a drug dog for a sniff of car was unreasonable. The officer … Continue reading