\u201c\u2018The mere occurrence of a firearm seizure during a traffic stop, however, is not enough to establish a Second Amendment violation. Police seize and confiscate firearms routinely, and this Court will not presume that each and every one of those seizures is an automatic Second Amendment violation without specific facts indicating such.\u2019 Partin v. Gevatoski, 2020 WL 4587386, at *4 (D. Or. Aug. 10, 2020); see also Siratsamy v. Sacramento Cnty. Sheriff Dep’t, 2021 WL 2210711, at *5 (E.D. Cal. June 1, 2021).\u201d Nesbit v. Speedway LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66229 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2023).* (Around here, many guns that are seized are returned in short order with a little paperwork if it\u2019s not an instrumentality of crime or the person not a FIPF.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Officers had reasonable suspicion to at least detain plaintiff to inquire whether he had damaged police department property. Then he refused to identify himself. This was all reasonable. Wallace v. Taylor, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 9014 (5th Cir. Apr. 14, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Cell phone search warrant not suppressed for failure to argue a legal basis for it. United States v. Wilson, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66125 (D. Md. Apr. 13, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201c\u2018The mere occurrence of a firearm seizure during a traffic stop, however, is not enough to establish a Second Amendment violation. Police seize and confiscate firearms routinely, and this Court will not presume that each and every one of those … Continue reading