Search for: "Consent Motion for Fourth Extension of Time"
Results 1 - 20
of 165
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Feb 2019, 3:30 pm
The defendant filed a motion to suppress the drugs, arguing that the search was illegal because the officer detained him longer than necessary to conduct the traffic stop and that consent to search was given after the stop should have ended. [read post]
18 Aug 2020, 9:08 am
Fourth Amendment claims based on extension of first traffic stop and second traffic stop by U.S. [read post]
29 Mar 2010, 5:10 pm
Laurel Park Road, Rancho Dominguez, California The motion reports that the parties to the Mississippi lease have consented to an extension through May 13, 2010 and the parties to the California lease have consented to an extension through July 1, 2010. [read post]
20 Mar 2024, 8:10 am
The defendant argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the traffic stop and the cell phone evidence. [read post]
27 Jan 2016, 6:09 pm
The trial court denied the defendant’s motion. [read post]
21 Mar 2023, 4:40 am
The suppression motion was therefore properly denied. [read post]
30 Jan 2021, 2:38 pm
The trial court denied the motion to suppress. [read post]
17 Apr 2024, 9:06 am
Previous summaries of Fourth Circuit cases are available here. [read post]
18 Jul 2023, 7:37 am
Prior to obtaining a ruling on the suppression motion, the defendant sought and received several continuances, and consented to two more sought by the Government. [read post]
2 Apr 2020, 8:10 am
The warrant therefore complied with the Fourth Amendment and the district court did not err denying the motion. [read post]
18 Jan 2022, 11:36 am
The mine had an extensive history of safety violations, and the defendant was charged with conspiracy to willfully violate federal mine safety regulations. [read post]
13 Feb 2024, 11:53 am
The Fourth Circuit disagreed. [read post]
17 Jul 2007, 4:11 am
") Thus, while our case law would support a holding that the Fourth Amendment allows an undercover officer to summon backup officers within a home after that officer has been invited with consent, neither the case law nor a rational extension of the case law would support including officers summoned by an informant within a home. [read post]
16 Aug 2022, 9:25 am
The Fourth Circuit disagreed. [read post]
22 Apr 2015, 6:35 am
The district court denied the motion, ruling that the delay to allow the dog sniff was “de minimis” and did not implicate the Fourth Amendment. [read post]
27 Jan 2016, 6:09 pm
The trial court denied the defendant’s motion. [read post]
22 Apr 2019, 7:02 pm
Referring to that precedent, the District Judge observed: As the Court has repeatedly emphasized, while the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness command must adapt to changing times and technology, the test of reasonableness is not whether an investigative practice maximizes law enforcement efficacy. [read post]
18 May 2016, 6:08 am
He did not consent to the search of that cell phone. [read post]
3 Feb 2015, 6:15 am
The trial court granted the motion to suppress, determining that the driver had not consented to the search. [read post]
23 Oct 2014, 3:27 pm
The family's attorney agreed to consent to the extension of preliminary letters. [read post]
