Defendant abandoned his cell phone, and then the police got a warrant for it. Still, it\u2019s abandonment. Williams v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 5777 (Tex. App. \u2013 Texarkana Aug. 5, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The evidence supported the district court\u2019s conclusion there was a factual basis for defendant\u2019s stop for not signaling a turn soon enough. United States v. Cardinale, 24-2784 (8th Cir. Aug. 4, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A tracking warrant is for movement, not contents of a vehicle. \u201cBased on the totality of the circumstances, the Court concludes that the Tracking Affidavit set forth sufficient facts to lead a reasonably prudent person to believe there was a fair probability that tracking the Vehicle’s location may lead to evidence of criminal activity. Notman, 831 F.3d at 1088.\u201d United States v. Verser, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149701 (D. Minn. June 16, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A film over the LPN making it harder to read justified this stop. United States v. Harris, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149685 (E.D. Tex. July 3, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant abandoned his cell phone, and then the police got a warrant for it. Still, it\u2019s abandonment. Williams v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 5777 (Tex. App. \u2013 Texarkana Aug. 5, 2025).* The evidence supported the district court\u2019s conclusion there … Continue reading