D.P.R.: Indicted fugitive can have standing in a place even using an alias

Defendant being an unindicted fugitive using a false name still had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place he was staying. This is different from the government’s authority involving convicted escapees. United States v. Cotto-Cruz, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113752 (D.P.R. June 29, 2023).

“Martinez’s consent to answer Deputy Wirthele’s questions [while still sitting in the patrol car] permitted him to extend the stop.” United States v. Martinez, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113756 (D.Neb. June 29, 2023).*

“Considering the totality of the circumstances, and in light of Deputy Wirthele’s considerable experience with drug trafficking investigations, the evidence supports the conclusion that there was reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop to wait for a drug dog. Defendants’ travel plans were odd and suspicious. Martinez initially said they left Fresno, California on February 1st, but later indicated they had left on February 3rd. Defendants also took a longer route than necessary to get to their destination by traveling through Lincoln, Nebraska. It was also unusual that Martinez did not know the city to which they were traveling, even though Deputy Wirthele provided the names of several cities in Kansas to refresh her memory. Neither Defendant knew exactly how long they would be in Kansas or what they would do there—other than go to a museum for Flores’ birthday, which was not for another month.” United States v. Martinez, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113417 (D.Neb. May 19, 2023).*

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

Comments are closed.