\u201cConsidering the totality of the circumstances, there are insufficient facts before the court to establish reasonable suspicion that would allow Officer Embley to prolong the stop and inquire about Kummer’s drug history. Reasonable suspicion is a low standard, but it is not so low that a person with prior drug charges loses their Fourth Amendment rights whenever they drive an uninsured vehicle belonging to someone with a suspended license. More than the facts as pled here is necessary to satisfy qualified immunity at this stage. Accordingly, Kummer has plausibly alleged Officer Embley violated her constitutional rights.\u201d Moreover, \u201cKummer’s Right Is Clearly Established.\u201d Kummer v. Embley, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34695 (D. Utah Feb. 19, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2254 petitioner doesn\u2019t get a motion to reconsider to put on new evidence to overcome the AEDPA standard of unreasonable application of federal law. McGee v. Warden, Belmont Corr. Inst., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35087 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 20, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2254 petitioner had several opportunities to litigate his suppression motion in state court, and he\u2019s Stone barred. He just doesn\u2019t like the denial of his suppression motions, which is not for federal litigation. Dunbar v. Annucci, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35336 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2026).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cConsidering the totality of the circumstances, there are insufficient facts before the court to establish reasonable suspicion that would allow Officer Embley to prolong the stop and inquire about Kummer’s drug history. Reasonable suspicion is a low standard, but it … Continue reading