Defendant was driving a borrowed car without a valid DL. He still has standing, and that\u2019s not conditioned on a driver\u2019s license. United States v. Huggins, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34758 (D.N.J. Feb. 20, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s vehicle was parked unlocked and with the keys inside. It was \u201creadily mobile\u201d for the automobile exception. State v. Medina, 2026 ND 45 (Feb. 19, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Officers had probable cause for the automobile exception based on information defendant had 10,000 fentanyl pills in his car. United States v. Siber\u00f3n-Flusa, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35172 (D.P.R. Feb. 12, 2026).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant was driving a borrowed car without a valid DL. He still has standing, and that\u2019s not conditioned on a driver\u2019s license. United States v. Huggins, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34758 (D.N.J. Feb. 20, 2026). Defendant\u2019s vehicle was parked unlocked … Continue reading