There was no Franks violation where the government emailed to the USMJ the search warrant request where defendant was arranging to meet an officer in a sting operation before defendant called off the meeting. This change wasn\u2019t material to the other probable cause. It also wasn’t false when made. United States v. Githens, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92780 (E.D. Cal. May 22, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Where the record wasn\u2019t clear that defendant abandoned his cell phone but lost it because of a car crash, there wasn\u2019t abandonment. As to inventory, \u201cthe Court here does not have sufficient evidence to determine whether there are appropriate safeguards on the GPD policy that apparently authorized this search. And where such safeguards cannot be ascertained, the inventory search cannot be upheld as an exception to the Fourth Amendment.\u201d Guam v. Taimanglo, 2024 Guam Trial Order LEXIS 1 (Apr. 3, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant was detained but not yet arrested. \u201cFrom these cases, it is clear that the use of physical restraints during a traffic stop does not automatically transform a detention into an arrest. Instead, physical restraints are merely one factor in the \u2018fact-specific inquiry [] guided by the general Fourth Amendment requirement of reasonableness.\u2019\u201d The patdown was on reasonable suspicion. Guam v. Nicolas, 2024 Guam Trial Order LEXIS 57 (Apr. 3, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
There was no Franks violation where the government emailed to the USMJ the search warrant request where defendant was arranging to meet an officer in a sting operation before defendant called off the meeting. This change wasn\u2019t material to the … Continue reading