E.D.N.C.: Being a mere drug handler in a drug house doesn’t give standing

Defendant lacked standing in the place searched because he lived elsewhere, and he was there helping run drugs through the house. United States v. Espindola-Pineda, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24489 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 3, 2016), adopted 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24488 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 29, 2016).

The traffic stop ripened to reasonable suspicion. “Thereafter, Trooper Stephenson developed additional reasonable suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to extend the stop beyond the point of asking general questions. First, neither the driver nor the passenger had a proper driver’s license. Second, during the course of Trooper Stephenson’s initial questioning, the occupants seemed unusually nervous. Third, the vehicle was registered to a third party, Guerrero. Fourth, during the initial questioning of the occupants in the vehicle, neither occupant could give Trooper Stephenson a destination. Fifth, Trooper Stephenson noticed unusual modification to the exhaust of the vehicle.” United States v. Guerrero, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25970 (W.D.La. Feb. 16, 2016).*

This entry was posted in Reasonable suspicion, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.