\u201cRegardless of whether Cosme was aware of the search condition prior to conducting the traffic stop, the district court did not err in denying Marr’s motion to suppress. We thus find it unnecessary to address the broader question of whether the existence of the parole condition alone sufficed to justify the search. This is because under the totality of circumstances, both the stop and the search were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.\u201d United States v. Marr, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 25527 (6th Cir. Sep. 26, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s stop but not submitting to authority and then taking off again justified his stop after the flight. United States v. Shelton, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172533 (D. Ariz. Sep. 27, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2255 petition for ineffective assistance of counsel on a Fourth Amendment claim is dismissed for lack of standing. United States v. Holley, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172711 (E.D. Ky. Sep. 27, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cRegardless of whether Cosme was aware of the search condition prior to conducting the traffic stop, the district court did not err in denying Marr’s motion to suppress. We thus find it unnecessary to address the broader question of whether … Continue reading