\u201cLaw enforcement’s conduct here\u2014boxing in Deas’ Kia, ordering both Defendants out of the car, and placing them in handcuffs\u2014falls within the scope of a seizure.\u201d It was with reasonable suspicion. Then a dog alerted, then they got a warrant. United States v. Deas, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66223 (D.N.J. Apr. 7, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Michigan granted review of \u201cthe proper analysis for determining whether statements made while detained in violation of the Fourth Amendment under Riverside Co v McLaughlin, 500 US 44 (1991), should be suppressed.\u201d People v. Sanders, 2025 Mich. LEXIS 592 (Apr. 4, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff\u2019s illegal arrest claim calls into question his conviction and thus is barred by Heck. Armstrong v. Smith, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65642 (D. Nev. Apr. 3, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One of the pieces of information in this affidavit for warrant involved information only later determined to have come from a jail call. The officer was not reckless or intentional not revealing that because it wasn\u2019t known at the time. United States v. Keys, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65500 (E.D. La. Apr. 7, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cLaw enforcement’s conduct here\u2014boxing in Deas’ Kia, ordering both Defendants out of the car, and placing them in handcuffs\u2014falls within the scope of a seizure.\u201d It was with reasonable suspicion. Then a dog alerted, then they got a warrant. United … Continue reading