Defendant used someone else\u2019s cell phone and officers pinged it to find him. He had no standing for the borrowed phone. After arrest, he admitted the shooting in a jail call. \u201cDefendant’s temporary use of the phone does not automatically create an expectation of privacy, and we do not assume ownership or a possessory interest in the phone based on mere possession.\u201d State v. Escalante, 2025 N.C. App. LEXIS 908 (Dec. 17, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Statute requires lane changes be done safely, and there\u2019s no legal basis for a \u201ctwo second rule,\u201d so the stop was unreasonable. There was no proof that it was unsafe. And a good faith mistake of law doesn\u2019t save it either. State v. Carter, 2025 Kan. App. LEXIS 56 (Dec. 19, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Franks claim fails: \u201cThe undersigned finds that the modified affidavit, albeit far from ideal, is sufficient to establish probable cause. The affidavit need not provide a great case for probable cause, and it need not be perfect.\u201d United States v. Wells, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 262797 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 22, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant used someone else\u2019s cell phone and officers pinged it to find him. He had no standing for the borrowed phone. After arrest, he admitted the shooting in a jail call. \u201cDefendant’s temporary use of the phone does not automatically … Continue reading