The district court erred in suppressing by finding no probable cause for a stop. \u201cBecause we conclude that Officer Prater’s observations of defendant in a drunken state no more than one hour before the stop furnished the officer with reasonable suspicion to stop defendant’s vehicle, we reverse the orders of suppression and dismissal, and we remand the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\u201d People v. Anderson, 2025 Mich. App. LEXIS 10408 (Dec. 23, 2025) (2-1).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Having lawfully seized plaintiff\u2019s cell phone but not seeking a warrant for it for days didn\u2019t state a claim for relief. Langham v. Noyd, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 33559 (9th Cir. Dec. 23, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant was in a taxi stopped for a traffic violation and raw marijuana was smelled. A loose cell phone was on the floor and no one claimed it. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy in that phone. State v. Smith, 2025-Ohio-5752 (4th Dist. Dec. 9, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The district court erred in suppressing by finding no probable cause for a stop. \u201cBecause we conclude that Officer Prater’s observations of defendant in a drunken state no more than one hour before the stop furnished the officer with reasonable … Continue reading