\u201cIn sum, the Court finds that the failure to comply with each of these clearly-written standardized procedures contributes to a finding that the purported inventory search was improperly conducted.\u201d Also, defendant didn\u2019t have standing to challenge the stop of the vehicle because he wasn\u2019t in it, but he has standing to challenge the inventory because he shows a reasonable expectation of privacy in it. United States v. Vick, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132355 (D. Mass. July 26, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The protective sweep was questionable, but consent saves it for the state. State v. Gill, 2024-Ohio-2792 (1st Dist. July 24, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant doesn\u2019t really argue that there was no reasonable suspicion for the police interaction here, and there was. United States v. Pankey, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130274 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2254 petitioner\u2019s claim the state court\u2019s Fourth Amendment decision was wrong or misleading is not enough under Stone v. Powell. Triplett v. Warden, Corr. Ctr. of Nw. Ohio, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130737 (S.D. Ohio July 24, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cIn sum, the Court finds that the failure to comply with each of these clearly-written standardized procedures contributes to a finding that the purported inventory search was improperly conducted.\u201d Also, defendant didn\u2019t have standing to challenge the stop of the … Continue reading