Defendant bought his sister her vehicle and she permitted him to drive it. He had standing to contest the stop. The stop was justified and reasonable in scope. United States v. Tillery, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 235323 (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 14, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant is indicted for interstate threats of harm. The government didn\u2019t commit a Franks violation by not including his explanations of a prior threats case because they aren\u2019t material here. United States v. Harding, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 232739 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 26, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cA reasonable officer confronted with these circumstances would have viewed Johnson as posing a significant threat to the safety of the officers and others who might be in the area. Moreover, contrary to Johnson’s allegations, the bodycam footage establishes that Johnson did not respond to the commands to show his hands [while lying on his stomach on his gun] until after shots were fired. Under these rapidly evolving and unpredictable circumstances, we conclude that the officers’ use of deadly force was not objectively unreasonable to fully secure Johnson. The officers were not required to wait for Johnson to move or to pull his gun before using deadly force to stop him.\u201d Johnson v. City of Palm Bay, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 30548 (11th Cir. Nov. 21, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant bought his sister her vehicle and she permitted him to drive it. He had standing to contest the stop. The stop was justified and reasonable in scope. United States v. Tillery, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 235323 (E.D. Tenn. Oct. … Continue reading