Defendant was stopped in a high crime area at night, and his furtive movements in the car justified a protective sweep of the car. United States v. Erving, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 1377 (7th Cir. Jan. 20, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s car was searched under a warrant and the alleged false statements weren\u2019t material. The automobile exception could be applicable but isn\u2019t even decided. United States v. Conner, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 1296 (6th Cir. Jan. 15, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant consented to a search of a sunglasses case by a social worker in the house. That eliminated any expectation of privacy in it, and then a police officer could search it, too. State v. Mogren, 2026 ND 2 (Jan. 15, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A broken taillight at night is justification for a stop. United States v. Briggs, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8972 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 16, 2026).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant was stopped in a high crime area at night, and his furtive movements in the car justified a protective sweep of the car. United States v. Erving, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 1377 (7th Cir. Jan. 20, 2026).* Defendant\u2019s car … Continue reading