Despite the local police having no formal impoundment policy, defendant\u2019s vehicle was impounded with their permission and inventoried by the FBI. The impoundment was still reasonable. United States v. Richards, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126028 (D. Mass. June 8, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Maryland has well developed case law on \u201csexually invasive searches,\u201d which was at issue here. In a long, comprehensive, and unpublished opinion, \u201cOn balance, we conclude that, although intrusive and demeaning like any sexually invasive search, the reach-in search at issue was reasonable and did not violate Smith’s rights under the Fourth Amendment.\u201d Smith v. State, 2026 Md. App. LEXIS 674 (June 10, 2026) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Maryland passed comprehensive firearm carry legislation after Bruen. It permitted the carrying of a firearm with a permit, but not open carry. An officer watching surveillance video saw defendant display his gun. Other officers were dispatched, and they frisked him. There was reasonable suspicion for the stop because he displayed the gun. He was a felon in possession. United States v. Fallin, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129960 (D. Md. June 11, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Despite the local police having no formal impoundment policy, defendant\u2019s vehicle was impounded with their permission and inventoried by the FBI. The impoundment was still reasonable. United States v. Richards, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126028 (D. Mass. June 8, 2026). … Continue reading