The search warrant for defendant\u2019s house included his tent outside. Gardner v. Miranda, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153610 (S.D. Fla. May 27, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The officer had reasonable suspicion for a stop, so the \u201cnew crime\u201d rationale the court of appeals adopted was unnecessary to be decided. State v. Morgan, 2026 N.M. LEXIS 128 (July 13, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIn this case, police had obtained warrants to track the location of two of Mr. Moore’s phones and several of his vehicles and were actively monitoring his location in the hours preceding the traffic stop. \u2026 The Court makes no conclusion on the applicability of Chatrie to LPR technology but notes that, even if the use of LPR technology violates the Fourth Amendment, the inevitable discovery doctrine likely applies to the facts here because the police were already tracking Mr. Moore through independent (and warranted) means.\u201d United States v. Moore, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156382 (D. Minn. July 15, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The search warrant for defendant\u2019s house included his tent outside. Gardner v. Miranda, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153610 (S.D. Fla. May 27, 2026). The officer had reasonable suspicion for a stop, so the \u201cnew crime\u201d rationale the court of appeals … Continue reading