Responding to a call, defendant fairly matched the description. When he would not identify himself, it was reasonable to handcuff him for a few minutes while it was sorted out. United States v. Troupe, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9010 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 16, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Police were called because two men renting a U-Haul truck were suspicious according to the rental agent. They were handcuffed for 10 minutes then released. There are questions of fact about all this. Summary judgment denied. Lee v. Budde, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8651 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In executing an anticipatory warrant for a package, officers could also use that same probable cause and past knowledge of the defendant to search his vehicle on the apartment complex\u2019s parking lot. Diverting the package from one city to another when in transit didn\u2019t require reasonable suspicion but they had it anyway. United States v. Dawson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8941 (D. Haw. Jan. 16, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Responding to a call, defendant fairly matched the description. When he would not identify himself, it was reasonable to handcuff him for a few minutes while it was sorted out. United States v. Troupe, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9010 (E.D. … Continue reading