Defendant\u2019s stop based on a mistaken belief the vehicle was stolen was not objectively reasonable when it was based on calling in the wrong number. United States v. Fields, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99668 (D. Minn. June 5, 2024), rejecting in part 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100963 (D. Minn., Apr. 8, 2024). [This is right from the script of an early Bosch (on Amazon; likely second season) episode where an officer called in a wrong LPN to justify a stop, and his partner questioned it.]<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Long term drug dealing then a shooting related to a drug deal wasn\u2019t stale. It also provided probable cause that a firearm would be found at defendant\u2019s home. United States v. Mays, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101012 (E.D. Mich. June 6, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cHoeft says that the officers seized him by blocking the alley. Assuming he’s right, the seizure was reasonable. When the officers arrived, they knew about the manager’s report that a trespasser was passed out behind the wheel of a small white truck, and they saw a truck that matched the description and appeared to be running. Based on these articulable facts, the officers had reasonable suspicion that Hoeft was trespassing and had \u2018physical control of a[] vehicle while\u2019 intoxicated.\u201d United States v. Hoeft, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 13880 (8th Cir. June 7, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s stop based on a mistaken belief the vehicle was stolen was not objectively reasonable when it was based on calling in the wrong number. United States v. Fields, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99668 (D. Minn. June 5, 2024), rejecting … Continue reading