The suppression order for defendant on coerced consent is reversed. The trial court engaged in its own research into facts to make the decision on acquiring the affidavit for a later warrant, the distance between things, and the temperature at the time from the weather service. Defendant\u2019s consent was not shown to be coerced to standing outside without a coat on a cold December night for roughly six minutes. State v. Romero, 2026 N.M. App. LEXIS 67 (Sep. 21, 2026) (see Model Rule of Judicial Conduct 2.9(C), statutory in New Mexico; see ABA Formal Opinion 478).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The search of defendant\u2019s vehicle pursuant to state law probation search waiver statute was reasonably conducted and didn\u2019t need reasonable suspicion. United States v. Wilson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213645 (W.D. Ark. Aug. 31, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant had his backpack searched under a probation waiver agreement. It was decided as a lack of standing below, which was kind of understandable because of language in some cases. Instead, it\u2019s just a Fourth Amendment waiver, and the search was valid. State v. Al-Mafrachi, 2026 Ida. LEXIS 135 (Sep. 22, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The suppression order for defendant on coerced consent is reversed. The trial court engaged in its own research into facts to make the decision on acquiring the affidavit for a later warrant, the distance between things, and the temperature at … Continue reading