During a traffic stop, an object hanging inside the passenger door concerned the officer. The passenger claimed the door wouldn\u2019t open from inside, so it was reasonable for the officer to open the door when ordering the passenger out. Penney v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 9449 (Tex. App. \u2013 Tyler Dec. 10, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The consenter knew she had a right to insist on a search warrant because she even mentioned it when asked about consent. She later consented. United States v. Hawthorne, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 256470 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 11, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant gets return of his iPhone after post-conviction time has run, but it\u2019s returned to factory settings because there was potential CSAM on it. United States v. Kindley, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 256353 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2025). (full disclosure, the blogger here represented him in the cited Arkansas case).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
During a traffic stop, an object hanging inside the passenger door concerned the officer. The passenger claimed the door wouldn\u2019t open from inside, so it was reasonable for the officer to open the door when ordering the passenger out. Penney … Continue reading