Defendant\u2019s search and seizure question for appeal on the independent source doctrine is significant enough to grant him release pending appeal. United States v. Haack, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60440 (D.N.M. Mar. 20, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The state\u2019s justifications for reasonable suspicion all fail: \u201cWe are persuaded that Mr. Davis’s conduct was largely innocent: Mr. Davis was located in a high-crime area because he lived there, the lack of shell casings and Mr. Davis’s nonsuspicious conduct should have dispelled any belief that he was responsible for the sound of gunfire, and Mr. Davis did not \u2018blade,\u2019 in fact, his body, but rather, cooperated with law enforcement questioning. We note, also, in passing, that, while the officers were apprehending Mr. Davis, additional shots (obviously fired by unknown individuals) were heard in the area. No shell casings were ever recovered from the area where Mr. Davis was standing.\u201d The trial court should have suppressed. Reversed. Davis v. State, 2026 Md. App. LEXIS 306 (Mar. 20, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s search and seizure question for appeal on the independent source doctrine is significant enough to grant him release pending appeal. United States v. Haack, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60440 (D.N.M. Mar. 20, 2026). The state\u2019s justifications for reasonable suspicion … Continue reading