The exclusionary rule doesn\u2019t apply to DL suspension proceedings. Kazelka v. Cal. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 196 (1st Dist. Mar. 27, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Officers responded to a shots fired call in a Bronx apartment and entered and arrested defendant. He didn\u2019t challenge the entry and plain view. He didn\u2019t consent so a search warrant was obtained, and it was issued with probable cause. United States v. Mejia, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57318 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant was validly stopped because his temporary tag had a red not white light over it in violation of state law. The fact it was a temporary tag not a permanent license plate, so it doesn\u2019t matter. United States v. Cordova, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57061 (D. Ariz. Mar. 27, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The officers\u2019 safety entry into defendant\u2019s apartment was reasonable. Even excluding all the information about that, there was still justification to search. His parole officer didn\u2019t need to be there. United States v. Feltner, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56942 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 27, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s stop for walking in the street and not on the sidewalk was reasonable. State v. Ndiaye, 2025-Ohio-1069 (10th Dist. Mar. 27, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The exclusionary rule doesn\u2019t apply to DL suspension proceedings. Kazelka v. Cal. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 196 (1st Dist. Mar. 27, 2025). Officers responded to a shots fired call in a Bronx apartment and entered and … Continue reading