E.D.Tenn.: Sale from house is nexus, and it did not mean all the drugs were gone

A controlled buy from the defendant’s house 72 hours before the search warrant was sought was nexus to believe that drugs would be found. A controlled buy did not mean that there would be no drugs on the premises, contrary to defendant’s assertion. United States v. Smith, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124043 (E.D. Tenn. November 19, 2009).*

There was probable cause on the totality from the CI in this case that defendant would be carrying drugs, so his stop and car search was reasonable under the automobile exception. United States v. Cooper, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5730 (W.D. La. January 19, 2010).*

Defendant’s stop was not unreasonable when he was suspected of bank robbery. United States v. Lugo, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5612 (M.D. Fla. January 6, 2010)*:

The Eleventh Circuit established a nonexclusive check list of four factors for the court to consider when reviewing whether or not the detention of a suspect was proper under Terry. In United States v. Acosta, the Eleventh Circuit stated the court should consider the law enforcement purposes served by the detention, the diligence with which the police pursued the investigation, the scope and intrusiveness of the detention, and the duration of the detention. 363 F.3d at 1146 (quoting U.S. v. Gil, 204 F.3d 1347, 1351 (11th Cir. 2000)).

Aerial video of defendant’s alleged driving infraction somewhat corroborates and does not contradict it. Therefore, it was with probable cause. United States v. Sarabia, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124021 (N.D. Ga. December 18, 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.