Officers suspected defendant was carrying a weapon, and they saw it as they approached. Under state law, he had to have the permit on him. \u201cSo, were the officers’ following actions (handcuffing Pettes and putting him in the squad car) \u2018reasonably related\u2019 to investigating whether Pettes was lawfully carrying a concealed weapon? Undoubtedly. These precautions enabled officers to investigate whether Pettes had a CPL in a safe and orderly manner.\u201d United States v. Pettes, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224869 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 14, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
State courts have the authority to get cell phone information across state lines. United States v. Wilnau, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225951 (D. Mont. Nov. 17, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cComputers and related equipment\u201d in the warrant includes cell phones. United States v. Kuhn, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225738 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 17, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The protective sweep before the warrant arrived was reasonable and limited. \u201cWhile the Court notes that the affidavit of probable cause attached to the first search warrant could have provided more details regarding the alleged previous narcotics activities of Mims, there are sufficient facts alleged to demonstrate probable cause that evidence of the crime would be found in a particular place.\u201d United States v. Mims, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226932 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 18, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Officers suspected defendant was carrying a weapon, and they saw it as they approached. Under state law, he had to have the permit on him. \u201cSo, were the officers’ following actions (handcuffing Pettes and putting him in the squad car) … Continue reading