Even though defendant apparently wasn\u2019t driving impaired, once validly stopped, the officer could run DL and LPN checks. The dog sniff didn\u2019t prolong the stop at all. United States v. Drayton, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206461 (N.D. Iowa Oct. 10, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A search warrant wasn\u2019t required for the state to get defendant\u2019s jail phone calls about harming a witness. State v. Bartell, 2023 Del. Super. LEXIS 880 (Nov. 17, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIn reviewing the totality of the circumstances, the Court concludes the affidavit supporting the warrant sufficiently establishes probable cause that Defendant’s cellphone was involved in the March 11 shooting, Defendant was in possession of that cellphone, and the cellphone had potentially relevant evidence. Defendant’s cellphone’s connection to the geographic area around the time of the incident, Defendant’s association with the gang and its members involved in the incident, and Defendant’s prior criminal history created a fair inference that the cellphone would contain evidence related to the March 11 incident and potential violations of 18 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 922(g)(1) and 924(c).\u201d United States v. Dacruz, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206775 (D.R.I. Nov. 17, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Even though defendant apparently wasn\u2019t driving impaired, once validly stopped, the officer could run DL and LPN checks. The dog sniff didn\u2019t prolong the stop at all. United States v. Drayton, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206461 (N.D. Iowa Oct. 10, … Continue reading