A vehicle was stopped in a traffic stop, and it was apparent that it had an electronically opened compartment in which cocaine was found. Officers determined that another vehicle was travelling with it, and they radioed ahead and requested that it be stopped if a traffic offense was observed. It was following too close. The knowledge of the two cars driving in tandem was reasonable suspicion for the second detention. United States v. Lopez-Garcia, 238 Fed. Appx. 402 (10th Cir. 2007) (unpublished).<\/p>\n
“It is irrelevant that the police disbelieve ownership disclaimers or know that the defendant is lying.” Defendant’s bogus disclaimer was a waiver of standing. United States v. O’Brien, 498 F. Supp. 2d 520 (N.D. N.Y. 2007).<\/p>\n
Officer walked up to defendant’s car after observing a likely drug deal go down and the buyer walking hurriedly away. Talking to the defendant was not a seizure. United States v. Hemingway, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56193 (W.D. N.Y. August 1, 2007).*<\/p>\n
2255 petitioner could not claim the benefit of Brendlin<\/em> on post-conviction because his search issue did not involve a standing issue. United States v. Kirksey, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56236 (E.D. Mich. August 2, 2007).*<\/p>\n Fired police officer filed a civil rights case over his firing and alleged a Fourth Amendment violation without any factual support, so that claim was dismissed. Viola v. Throop, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56181 (M.D. Pa. August 2, 2007).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading