Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Fourth Circuit Blog
OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Criminal Law
: Fourth Circuit BlogVitalizing the exclusionary rule
By Jonathan Byrne
ADVERTISEMENTS
US v. Foster: Foster pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to deliver cocaine after police officers discovered drugs and some paraphernalia during an investigative stop. Foster reserved the right to appeal the denial of a suppression motion in which he argued that the officers lacked a reasonable suspicion to make the stop. In a felicitous turn for Foster, the Fourth Circuit on appeal expresses its dismay at what it characterizes as "Government attempts to spin these largely mundane acts into a web of deception," finding a lack of articulable facts to support the district court's finding of reasonable suspicion sufficient to support the investigative stop, and vacates Foster's conviction. Remarking on the similarity of this case to the factual scenario of US v...continue to full postFull post as published by Fourth Circuit Blog on March 03, 2011 (boomark / email).
Related Law Articles
Copyright Lawsuits: Critical Issues Before Filing Copyright
Federa Rule 11(b) Considerations
Related Searches
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.

Is the Exclusionary Rule Consistent With Originalism:
Exclusionary rule and qualified immunity
Bilz on Experimental Examination of the Exclusionary Rule
Why Does the United States Have an Exclusionary Rule:
Originalism Does Not Support an Exclusionary Rule
Paper on the demise of the exclusionary rule








