Defendant had no expectation of privacy in the interior of a taxicab from a dog sniff. Also, the driver consented to it, as he could do. United States v. Trapp, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37766 (D. Vt. March 20, 2014).<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s stop was valid for reasonable suspicion he was involved in a hand to hand drug transaction. \u201cOfficer Edmond and his partner approached the defendant and began conversing with him from a distance of one to two feet, at which time a piece of crack cocaine fell out of his mouth.\u201d That was plain view. State v. Hall<\/a>, 2014 La. App. LEXIS 720 (La.App. 4 Cir. March 19, 2014).*<\/p>\n Defendant was stopped for cutting off a semi when pulling in after passing it. Once stopped, the officer found it was a rental car, and defendant wasn\u2019t the renter or an authorized driver. Reasonable suspicion existed to extend the stop. State v. Brazil<\/a>, 2014-Ohio-995, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 985 (6th Dist. March 7, 2014).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading