Defendant was on supervised release and revoked. No downward variance because the search violated the Fourth Amendment and led to dismissal of that separate case. United States v. Corbett, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 8758 (4th Cir. Apr. 14, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIn this case, the district court reasoned that the 911 caller appeared to have a basis of knowledge because his report concerned an incident to which he was an eyewitness. See Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393, 399 (2014) \u2026 The district court also reasoned that the reliability of the caller’s report was enhanced because it was \u2018at least minimally corroborated\u2019 by the officers’ knowledge that Gaal was known by the nickname Deq and drove a red Toyota. \u2026 The district court concluded that the totality of the circumstances indicated a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to justify the officers’ seizure of Gaal.\u201d The court agrees. State v. Gaal, 2025 Minn. App. LEXIS 108 (Apr. 14, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Special supervised release condition of electronic monitoring was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Robinson, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 8718 (2d Cir. Apr. 14, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant was on supervised release and revoked. No downward variance because the search violated the Fourth Amendment and led to dismissal of that separate case. United States v. Corbett, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 8758 (4th Cir. Apr. 14, 2025). \u201cIn … Continue reading