D.Kan.: Burner phone and being from town of Sinaloa Drug Cartel were factors in reasonable suspicion

“Deputy Jimerson is trained in drug interdiction and has previously testified as an expert witness on interdiction. During the stop, he saw the defendants were speaking on Tracfones when he approached the car, which he knows to be commonly used as ‘burner’ phones in the drug trade. Both defendants appeared extremely nervous for the duration of the stop: their hands shook, they sweated profusely, and Gastelum-Castro avoided eye contact. Gastelum-Castro’s pinky fingernail was long, while his other fingernails were trimmed short, a characteristic Deputy Jimerson knows to be common among drug users. A strong odor of air freshener emanated from the car’s interior, possibly indicating an attempt to mask the odor of narcotics. Neither defendant owned the vehicle, which Deputy Jimerson knows to be common practice among drug traffickers. Deputy Jimerson also observed inconsistent travel plans: defendants claimed they were traveling to Kansas City to see family, but the woman on the phone claimed they were going to Kansas City to look for construction work. The vehicle was registered in Oregon and the driver had a Washington driver’s license. Gastelum-Castro is from Sinaloa, Mexico, where the Sinaloa Drug Cartel is headquartered. Defendants also both had bloodshot eyes, but said that they were not tired. [¶] Deputy Jimerson’s observations, taken together and in light of Deputy Jimerson’s experience and training, provide an objectively reasonable and articulable suspicion that defendants were involved in drug activity. The duration of the stop was thus supported by reasonable and articulable suspicion that drug activity was afoot. United States v. Valenzuela-Rojo, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137047 (D.Kan. Oct. 7, 2015).

The smell of marijuana justified the search of defendant’s car. United States v. Ray, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137543 (W.D.Mo. Sept. 8, 2015), adopted 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136757 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 7, 2015).*

Defendant engaged in file sharing by a P2P network has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the files that can be shared. United States v. Hall, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137053 (M.D.Fla. July 10, 2015),* adopted 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136999 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 7, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Probable cause, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.