Not exactly following the inventory policy doesn\u2019t make it unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Maldonadochavarria, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180956 (W.D. Mo. July 13, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cHere, King was placed in handcuffs and moved from the Rite Shop to the parking lot and placed in a police cruiser. While King was placed in handcuffs, only three minutes passed between King being placed in handcuffs in the Rite Shop and law enforcement searching the fanny pack to discover the firearm and the drugs. Indeed, upon King’s initial detention, law enforcement diligently searched for the fanny pack and found it approximately 90 seconds later. The Court accordingly finds that King’s brief detention in the police cruiser did not transform the Terry stop into a full arrest.\u201d United States v. King, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180922 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 13, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defense counsel was ineffective for not filing a plausible motion to suppress. Defense counsel was deficient in communicating with defendant and kept saying he was working on a motion to suppress but one was never filed. United States v. Jones, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181146 (D. Kan. Aug. 13, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Not exactly following the inventory policy doesn\u2019t make it unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Maldonadochavarria, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180956 (W.D. Mo. July 13, 2026). \u201cHere, King was placed in handcuffs and moved from the Rite Shop … Continue reading