\u201cHere, the Court finds that Omegle and TextNow’s preservation of evidence in response to the Government’s request under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2703(f)\u2014a provision of the Stored Communications Act\u2014did not violate the Fourth Amendment for two reasons. First, because the preservation was not a seizure. Second, because Omegle and TextNow were not acting as government agents.\u201d United States v. King, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129751 (D.Nev. July 17, 2023). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Traffic offenses, aside from a cracked windshield, justified the stop. \u201c[W]hile Wilson was looking for various documents, Green noticed items in the glove compartment indicative of drug use. This, combined with his observations about Wilson and Hart’s demeanor, was enough to arouse Green’s suspicion that further criminal activity was afoot.\u201d Thus, the stop was reasonably extended. United States v. Hart, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128661 (D. Idaho July 24, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Without explaining the facts, the district court\u2019s findings the use of force was reasonable is affirmed. Skeen v. Sparks, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 19099 (4th Cir. July 26, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cHere, the Court finds that Omegle and TextNow’s preservation of evidence in response to the Government’s request under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2703(f)\u2014a provision of the Stored Communications Act\u2014did not violate the Fourth Amendment for two reasons. First, because the preservation … Continue reading