The officer\u2019s statement that defendant\u2019s van was \u201csecured\u201d was not sufficient false and misleading to even be reckless. The officer was passing on information from other officers about the van, but the windows were missing and it was accessible. United States v. Kucharo, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 3091 (8th Cir. Feb. 11, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It was reasonable for defense counsel to not pursue a Fourth Amendment consent argument here because it likely would have failed. Ghaloustian v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22786 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not arguing CSLI information was inadmissible after the trial court denied his motion to suppress it. State v. Goynes, 318 Neb. 413 (Feb. 7, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The officer ran defendant\u2019s LPN and it came back as uninsured. That justified the stop. United States v. Montgomery, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22820 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 7, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The officer\u2019s statement that defendant\u2019s van was \u201csecured\u201d was not sufficient false and misleading to even be reckless. The officer was passing on information from other officers about the van, but the windows were missing and it was accessible. United … Continue reading