D.Mass.: USMJ does not buy officer’s version of stop

USMJ does not accept that there was cause for defendant’s stop, either as a traffic offense or that there was reasonable suspicion for the stop. Then it was overly long. United States v. Alix, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56955 (D. Mass. June 30, 2009)*:

Candidly, most of the opinions involving time and duration challenges to car stops sustain the actions of the police under various rationale, but there must be limits. One can pretend that the stop is justified as a traffic stop, so long as the car was actually violating the law. One can do what is necessary to learn about the occupants during the stop — questioning, asking for documentation — so long as one acts consistent with the limited information he has. What one cannot do is carry the stop beyond its rationale. Otherwise, more than the traffic stop rationale would be illusory; Fourth Amendment protection would be, as well.

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress the search in his case. While his co-defendant suppressed the search in that case, defendant did not have standing to challenge that search. United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56769 (D. Kan. July 1, 2009).*

“Had Petitioner’s attorney contested the search of the sealed package containing the methamphetamine, the odds the search would have been invalidated on the facts alleged by Petitioner are essentially nil. Because an attorney is not duty-bound to file a motion that he knows to be without merit, …, it cannot be held that Petitioner’s attorney performed deficiently when he declined to challenge the search of the sealed package containing the methamphetamine.” Parra v. United States, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56974 (E.D. Cal. June 15, 2009).*

Defendant’s stop and search were based on probable cause, so Gant is inapplicable. United States v. Bateman, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56259 (E.D. Tex. June 25, 2009).*

[posted 7/8/9]