On the totality, defendant\u2019s stop was without reasonable suspicion. Only after he was handcuffed did an officer run the LPN finding a warrant. The government fails on inevitable discovery here. United States v. Warner, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210974 (D.N.M. Oct. 27, 2025). (Caution: I see this one being appealed and the government likely winning. Is it reasonable to run the LPN at their convenience if they would anyway? I suspect that’s what the Tenth Circuit would say.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The stop for speeding was reasonable, and the officer developed reasonable suspicion that defendant was likely under the influence of meth and maybe had some in the car. The dog sniff was, therefore, reasonable. United States v. Smith, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211477 (D. Mont. Oct. 27, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cDefendants are charged with various offenses relating to fraud, immigration, money laundering, and the Foreign Agents Registration Act (\u2018FARA\u2019). Defendants have since the outset inquired whether this case implicates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (\u2018FISA\u2019) and search warrants issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (\u2018FISC\u2019). The Government has given, and continues to give, an unqualified denial in answer to that question. Unsatisfied, defendants move to compel the Government to disclose the legal authority under which certain unproduced classified materials were obtained. For the reasons below, defendants’ motion is denied.\u201d United States v. Sun, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211419 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
On the totality, defendant\u2019s stop was without reasonable suspicion. Only after he was handcuffed did an officer run the LPN finding a warrant. The government fails on inevitable discovery here. United States v. Warner, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210974 (D.N.M. … Continue reading