It\u2019s not coercive to tell a suspect that the officer will get a search warrant if he doesn\u2019t consent when there\u2019s probable cause. State v. Gore, 2025 Wisc. App. LEXIS 7 (Jan. 7, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There was probable cause for defendant\u2019s vehicle search under the automobile exception. United States v. Lopez, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 235816 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 4, 2024),* adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1689 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 6, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe administration of the SFSTs in this case, while flawed, yielded sufficient clues of intoxication that, when combined with the officer’s other observations, established probable cause for Defendant’s arrest.\u201d United States v. Villarreal, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2253 (W.D. La. Jan. 3, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Despite plaintiff stopping his car, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established that firing at plaintiff after his vehicle collided and stopped, but still potentially posed a threat, violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Manery v. Lee, No. 24-1292, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 314 (7th Cir. Jan. 7, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
It\u2019s not coercive to tell a suspect that the officer will get a search warrant if he doesn\u2019t consent when there\u2019s probable cause. State v. Gore, 2025 Wisc. App. LEXIS 7 (Jan. 7, 2025). There was probable cause for defendant\u2019s … Continue reading