Defendant was driving a car with a fraudulent VIN but claimed he knew nothing about that, having borrowed the car. Other things in the car added to probable cause to believe he was involved in frauds, and that ultimately led to seizure of his cell phones. The 28-day delay in getting a warrant for the phones was not unreasonable \u201cunder the particular facts of this case.\u201d Also, defendant didn\u2019t ask for the phones back. United States v. Gordon, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 272855 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 3, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cHere, even assuming Hulett did not directly observe a specific traffic violation, the totality of the circumstances supported Hulett’s articulable suspicion\u2014he received notice of a civilian emergency report that Burkhalter’s vehicle was driving erratically and dangerously, and Hulett was able to confirm information from the 911 call when he observed a white truck with a cattle trailer following a white Volvo SUV (matching the caller’s descriptions) in the area. Hulett then observed evasive behavior from Burkhalter when she repeatedly left the roadway after his patrol car pulled up behind her. Thus, Hulett ‘nonetheless had reasonable articulable suspicion to stop [Burkhalter] \u2026 whether or not [s]he was [failing to maintain her lane].\u2019\u201d Burkhalter v. State, 2026 Ga. App. LEXIS 57 (Jan. 30, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant was driving a car with a fraudulent VIN but claimed he knew nothing about that, having borrowed the car. Other things in the car added to probable cause to believe he was involved in frauds, and that ultimately led … Continue reading