PA: Possession of a car is indicative of standing, but it’s not controlling

Being in possession of and driving a car is indicative of standing, but it only a factor. More is required. The trial court’s conclusion on the probable cause question is a mixed question of law and fact, and the appellate court disagrees here that there was probable cause for a search of defendant’s car. The police had reasonable suspicion but not probable cause. Therefore, the motion to suppress should have been granted. Commonwealth v. Newman, 2014 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2 (January 6, 2014).*

Officers had reason to stop defendant for taillights and no LPN. He consented to a search of his person and a contact lens case which had methamphetamine in it. United States v. Stringer, 739 F.3d 391 (8th Cir. 2014).*

Defendant was charged with contempt and witness tampering. There was probable cause and nexus to his house for a search warrant. United States v. Walker, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182429 (D. Minn. December 4, 2013),* adopted 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 692 (D. Minn. January 3, 2014).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.