\u201c[T]he purpose of a motion to suppress is not to challenge the sufficiency or admissibility of evidence. See U.S. v. Musgrave, 726 F. Supp. 1027 (W.D.N.C. 1989) (\u2018As the Government contends \u2026 evidentiary issues are better addressed at trial through a motion in limine rather than a motion to suppress.\u2019); U.S. v. Pavlock, 2010 WL 4789156, *3 (N.D. W. Va. Oct. 25, 2010) (explaining that non-constitutional challenges to the propriety of evidence are more properly presented via a motion in limine rather than a motion to suppress).\u201d United States v. Glover, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34293 (N.D.W.Va. Feb. 9, 2024), adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33645 (N.D.W.Va. Feb. 27, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s patdown after a traffic stop lacked reasonable suspicion. United States v. Samuel, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34213 (D.V.I. Feb. 28, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The officer conducting a traffic stop here had reasonable suspicion on the totality. There were two cars in tandem with California plates in Kansas, the second one following way too close, he suspected to keep the gap close. The cars were rentals due in San Diego that day. The travel plans made no sense, and they were heading in the wrong direction. The occupants were nervous. Finally, there was a Santa Muerte statue in one car, and the officer said he\u2019d never seen one in a nondrug trafficker\u2019s car. United States v. Mendez, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34236 (D. Kan. Feb. 28, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201c[T]he purpose of a motion to suppress is not to challenge the sufficiency or admissibility of evidence. See U.S. v. Musgrave, 726 F. Supp. 1027 (W.D.N.C. 1989) (\u2018As the Government contends \u2026 evidentiary issues are better addressed at trial through … Continue reading