A frisk that went inside defendant\u2019s pants was unreasonable. United States v. Davis, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202764 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 20, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When a stop revealed a holster when the defendant got out of the vehicle, a further intrusion was justified to look for the gun. People v. Mitchell, 2025 Mich. App. LEXIS 8264 (Oct. 14, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant doesn\u2019t contest the stop, just its extension, which was with reasonable suspicion of being under the influence. State v. Brown, 2025 Iowa App. LEXIS 898 (Oct. 15, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defense counsel wasn\u2019t clearly ineffective for not challenging the search warrant for his cell phone with a catch-all phrase. \u201c And we are aware of no precedent–and Moss cites none–supporting the notion that an unlimited date range, either alone or combined with a catch-all clause that is limited like the one here, is enough to nudge an otherwise valid warrant outside the bounds of the particularity requirement.\u201d Moss v. State, 2025 Ga. LEXIS 226 (Oct. 15, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A frisk that went inside defendant\u2019s pants was unreasonable. United States v. Davis, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202764 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 20, 2025). When a stop revealed a holster when the defendant got out of the vehicle, a further intrusion … Continue reading