Where the purpose for the stop is immediately dispelled, it should end
FourthAmendment.com:
The purpose of the stop of defendant should have been dispelled immediately, and continuing the stop violated the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Salinas, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50940 (W.D. Tex. June 17, 2008).
A possible violation of interchange of judges between districts and the issuance of a search warrant was not cognizable under the Fourth Amendment. The law was clear before, and Moore only seals it. United States v. Franklin, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 14080, 2008 FED App. 0393N (6th Cir. July 1, 2008) (unpublished).*
Driver’s license checkpoint produced defendant’s drunk driving arrest. The trial court’s findings that the checkpoint was lawfully set up merely parroted the officer’s testimony, and this was inadequate. Remanded for more findings. State v. Veazey, 2008 N.C. App. LEXIS 1228 (July 1, 2008):
As noted above, these findings alone cannot support a conclusion that the checkpoint was reasonable because the trial court did not make adequate findings on the first two Brown prongs. Further, the trial court’s written findings tend to weigh in favor of a conclusion that the checkpoint was an unreasonable detention. The trial court therefore was required to explain why it concluded that, on balance, the public interest in the checkpoint outweighed the intrusion on Defendant’s protected liberty interests. The trial court’s written order, however, contains no such explanation. Therefore, if the trial court determines on remand that the State’s primary purpose for the checkpoint was lawful, it must also issue new findings and conclusions regarding the reasonableness of the checkpoint.