Telling a detainee in a traffic stop to come to the rear of the car is not an unreasonable seizure. United States v. Holmes, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99976 (E.D. Mich. June 8, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The trial court erred in suppressing the product of defendant\u2019s stop and smell of alcohol about his person. There was probable cause for the vehicle warrant for evidence of DUI manslaughter. State v. Acevedo, 2023 Fla. App. LEXIS 3767 (Fla. 4th DCA June 7, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cTo be clear, we express no opinion as to whether the officers had any legal justification to stop defendant Jones’s vehicle or arrest him or whether ShotSpotter is reliable for purposes of the fourth amendment. The trial court can decide those issues in a suppression hearing.\u201d People v. Jones, 2023 IL App (1st) 221311, 2023 Ill. App. LEXIS 195 (June 7, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant waived his Rodriguez claim by pleading guilty. He also can\u2019t succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim because he\u2019d lose on the merits. McGuire v. United States, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99312 (W.D. Tenn. June 7, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Telling a detainee in a traffic stop to come to the rear of the car is not an unreasonable seizure. United States v. Holmes, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99976 (E.D. Mich. June 8, 2023). The trial court erred in suppressing … Continue reading