\u201cBut clearing the low bar of reasonable suspicion requires little more. Police need not \u2018carry around and use burdensome equipment to measure light transmittance.” United States v. Wallace, 213 F.3d 1216, 1220 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting People v. Niebauer, 263 Cal. Rptr. 287, 295 (Ct. App. 1989)). The record must simply demonstrate a particularized and objective basis for believing that the degree of window tinting violates the law.\u201d United States v. Salas, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26515 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The fact the officer allegedly falsified the affidavit for search warrant doesn\u2019t impose liability on the city because plaintiff doesn\u2019t show there\u2019s a pattern or practice of the city. Austin v. Mosley, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 3286 (6th Cir. Feb. 10, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Officers came to take possession of a vehicle on a writ, and they didn\u2019t violate the Fourth Amendment doing so. Also, plaintiff voluntarily gave it up. Cranfill v. SC Home Builders Self Insurers Fund, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25614 (D.S.C. Jan. 24, 2025),* adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23373 (D.S.C. Feb. 10, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cBut clearing the low bar of reasonable suspicion requires little more. Police need not \u2018carry around and use burdensome equipment to measure light transmittance.” United States v. Wallace, 213 F.3d 1216, 1220 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting People v. Niebauer, 263 … Continue reading