Mandamus doesn\u2019t lie to compel a district court to grant a motion to suppress and dismiss an indictment because of an alleged change in the dates of the charge to cover up an illegal search. There\u2019s a possible remedy in the district court if it\u2019s litigated. In re McDonald, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5864 (6th Cir. Mar. 12, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The officer\u2019s ordering defendant out of the vehicle was reasonable, but the frisk that followed wasn\u2019t. \u201cHowever, based on the totality of the circumstances, we conclude the troopers failed to articulate specific facts from which they could reasonably infer that Miller was armed and dangerous to justify a Terry frisk. A factually analogous case, Commonwealth v. Henderson, No. 882 MDA 2023, 2024 WL 4235017 (Pa. Super. filed Sept. 19, 2024) (unpublished memorandum), is instructive.\u201d Commonwealth v. Miller, 2025 PA Super 61 (Mar. 14, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff can\u2019t cite a similar excessive force case to his, so the officers get qualified immunity. Smith v. Town of Chino Valley, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6016 (9th Cir. Mar. 14, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A dimly blinking turn signal wasn\u2019t functioning properly, and that justified this stop. State v. Perry, 318 Neb. 613 (Mar. 14, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Mandamus doesn\u2019t lie to compel a district court to grant a motion to suppress and dismiss an indictment because of an alleged change in the dates of the charge to cover up an illegal search. There\u2019s a possible remedy in … Continue reading