Collateral estoppel bars relitigating a search in a \u00a7 1983 case found lawful in an underlying criminal case. Boseman v. Flint Police Dep’t, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46699 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 15, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cAs discussed, Brown acquired the information giving rise to his reasonable suspicion during the mission of the stop. The conflicting stories surfaced during Brown’s initial contact with Jackson and while he was measuring window tint. And the interaction with Jackson while sitting in his patrol car occurred while Brown was writing the citation. While Jackson suggests that Brown deliberately prolonged the stop when he rewrote the citation, Brown’s explanation is plausible, and the Court finds it credible.\u201d Both stuck with their inconsistent stories when asked again. United States v. Jackson, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47612 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 18, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cOn appeal, Hadsell contends that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress because the search warrant issued was based on false statements. We do not reach the merits of Hadsell’s argument because he failed to file the transcript of the suppression hearing or a written statement of facts in lieu of the transcript necessary for our review.\u201d Hadsell v. Commonwealth, 2024 Va. App. LEXIS 148 (Mar. 19, 2024) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Collateral estoppel bars relitigating a search in a \u00a7 1983 case found lawful in an underlying criminal case. Boseman v. Flint Police Dep’t, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46699 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 15, 2024). \u201cAs discussed, Brown acquired the information giving … Continue reading