ALERT 2020 — Bi-Weekly Newsletter (December 1–12, 2025)

A. 4th Circuit: Traffic Stop “Fishing Expedition” → Gun Suppressed

United States v. Hawkins, No. 24-4502 (4th Cir. Dec. 11, 2025)

The Fourth Circuit reversed the denial of suppression and held police illegally prolonged a traffic stop to investigate drugs—so the gun found during the extended stop must be suppressed.

ALERT 2020 takeaway: If your case involved a K-9 sniff, a stop that ran long after the traffic mission should have been over, or a search/pat-down that followed an extended stop, you may have a strong Fourth Amendment issue (or ineffective assistance if counsel didn’t litigate/preserve it). Hawkins preserved the issue through a plea appeal provision.

B. 5th Circuit: Supervised Release Conditions Must Match What Judge Said

United States v. Currier, No. 24-50974 (5th Cir. Dec. 2, 2025)

Big reminder: if the judge doesn’t orally pronounce a discretionary supervised release condition at sentencing, it generally cannot appear later in the written judgment.

What happened: The written judgment added conditions through a “Standing Order,” including a new full-time work requirement (30 hours/week), even though the judge did not pronounce new discretionary conditions.

Holding: Building on Diggles (5th Cir. 2020), the Fifth Circuit adopted a clear rule: any discretionary condition in the written judgment that conflicts with the oral sentence must be removed on remand.

Why this matters: If your written judgment includes conditions you never heard the judge say—especially new or stricter conditions—this case may help you challenge them in the Fifth Circuit.

C. 5th Circuit: Cyberstalking Resulting in Death Not Clearly a “Crime of Violence” for § 924(c)

United States v. Elkins, No. 24-10753 (5th Cir. Dec. 10, 2025)

Elkins received a § 924(c) conviction and life sentence based on cyberstalking as the predicate “crime of violence.” The Fifth Circuit held the cyberstalking statute (18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)) is divisible, and the jury instructions allowed conviction under either subsection.

Key point: One version—§ 2261A(2)(B)—is not categorically a “crime of violence.” Because the verdict could have rested on that version, the § 924(c) conviction could not stand.

Result: The court vacated the § 924(c) conviction and its life sentence (other convictions remained, including life on Count 2).

Why this matters: If your § 924(c) predicate is a non-force statute (including cyberstalking under § 2261A(2)(B) or something similar), this decision may create a path to attack the gun count—often the biggest time-driver in the case.

D. 10th Circuit: Bad Jury Instruction on Involuntary Intoxication → New Trial

United States v. Rainford, No. 24-7022 (10th Cir. Dec. 9, 2025)

Rainford admitted the killing but raised involuntary intoxication (from prescribed Adderall) as a defense. The district court instructed the jury that the defense was automatically barred if Rainford (1) knew Adderall could intoxicate, or (2) used any illegal drugs while on it.

Holding: Those categorical “disqualifiers” were legal error. They might be evidence to weigh, but they cannot automatically bar the defense. The error wasn’t harmless because involuntary intoxication was the main defense and the government relied heavily on the bad instruction.

Result: The Tenth Circuit reversed and ordered a new trial, also noting a lesser-included instruction (involuntary manslaughter) may be appropriate on retrial if supported.

Why this matters: If your case involved medication-driven psychosis/intoxication, mental-state defenses, or a judge who limited or misstated defense instructions, Rainford is a strong reminder: bad instructions can overturn a conviction.