CA8: Removing defendant’s bag from Greyhound bus was a seizure

Defendant’s stop was not too long, and the district court erred in granting the motion to suppress. The length of the stop was added to by defendant’s “confused answers” to basic questions. United States v. Rivera, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14746 (8th Cir. July 6, 2009).*

Removing defendant’s bag from a Greyhound bus effectively seized him, relying on United States v. Va Lerie, 424 F.3d 694 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc). United States v. Alvarez-Manzo, 570 F.3d 1070 (8th Cir. 2009).*

Stop for speeding and then ordering defendant from his vehicle was reasonable. United States v. Anderson, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57381 (E.D. Va. July 6, 2009).*

Once the cat was out of the bag as to the officers’ presence, a warrantless entry was permitted under Segura. The court already found that the officers would have otherwise gotten a search warrant and already had probable cause. United States v. Etchin, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109187 (W.D. Wis. December 18, 2008).*

Gant came along after the USMJ made his R&R, but it did not alter the outcome. Defendant was stopped for a noise violation and officers saw an open container. Based on circumstances, they had reason to believe a gun would be in the console. That search occurred after defendant was handcuffed and walking to a police car. United States v. Bullock, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58080 (E.D. Wis. June 23, 2009).*

Reviewing and signing a consent form that said that the consenter could refuse consent showed that the consent was valid. United States v. Myers, 335 Fed. Appx. 936 (11th Cir. 2009) (unpublished).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.