\u201c[T]he constitutionality of the stop does not depend on whether the driver did, in fact, commit a traffic violation. The standard is reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. If an officer reasonably thinks he saw a driver commit a traffic infraction, then that is enough to pull him over.\u201d United States v. Jones, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233627 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 30, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The protective weapons sweep of defendant\u2019s car was justified by reasonable suspicion. Commonwealth v. Hendrick, 2022 Va. App. LEXIS 684 (Dec. 29, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
During a consensual encounter in a car, the officer saw a firearm through the window. That view was not a search. United States v. Smither, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233629 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 30, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff\u2019s claim that state search warrants were actionable under \u00a7 1983 because improper methods were used under state statute states a claim. Burley v. Sumner Cty. 18th Judicial Dist. Drug Task Force, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233663 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 30, 2022).* [And this is contrary to Virginia v. Moore.]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201c[T]he constitutionality of the stop does not depend on whether the driver did, in fact, commit a traffic violation. The standard is reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. If an officer reasonably thinks he saw a driver commit a traffic infraction, then … Continue reading