The protective sweep of defendant\u2019s room is suppressed because the government articulates no reasonable suspicion to believe anyone else was in there. Delay in opening the door isn\u2019t it. Searching between the mattress and box springs was also unreasonable. Waiting eight months to execute an arrest warrant wasn\u2019t unreasonable. The government fails in showing inevitable discovery. United States v. Cleckley, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101993 (D. Md. May 8, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe stop and seizure of Melton did not violate the Fourth Amendment since the officers performed community caretaking functions initially, and Melton’s stopped vehicle constituted a traffic violation that along with the officers’ knowledge of a probation violation warrant associated with a weapons charge for the registered owner of the vehicle, provided the officers with justification to open the vehicle doors, help remove Melton from the vehicle and further investigate to confirm the warrant.\u201d United States v. Melton, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102142 (N.D. Ohio May 8, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant filed a Franks motion that was previously denied for lack of materiality. With some new evidence, he filed another one, but this is denied as conclusory and doesn\u2019t overcome the prior holding. United States v. Hardison, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102503 (E.D. Tenn. May 8, 2026).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The protective sweep of defendant\u2019s room is suppressed because the government articulates no reasonable suspicion to believe anyone else was in there. Delay in opening the door isn\u2019t it. Searching between the mattress and box springs was also unreasonable. Waiting … Continue reading