Officer had probable cause on the totality to search a case that the defendant tossed into a car, thereby making the car subject to search. United States v. Longmore, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3523 (D. Conn. January 17, 2008):<\/p>\n
Normally a search requires a warrant but the automobile exception to that rule is relied on here. His tossing the case into the car justified a belief that defendant sought to hide something. That contraband was believed to be found in the car was reasonably reinforced by his drug denial. Given a car’s mobility and one’s diminished expectancy of privacy therein, that belief in the circumstances presented to the officers, warranted the look into the car and the case by Broems. See Pennsylvania v. Labron<\/em><\/a>, 518 U.S. 938, 939, 116 S. Ct. 2485, 135 L. Ed. 2d 1031 (1996)(Per curiam). See also California v. Acevedo<\/em><\/a>, 500 U.S. 565, 570, 111 S. Ct. 1982, 114 L. Ed. 2d 619 (1991). A stopped vehicle can fall within the exception. United States v. Vassiliou<\/em>, 820 F.2d 28, 30 (2d. Cir. 1987).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Suspicionless probation search is still valid in California, recognizing that arbitrary or harassing searches would not be. People v. Medina<\/a>, 158 Cal. App. 4th 1571, 70 Cal. Rptr. 3d 413 (5th Dist. 2007), published January 17, 2008.*<\/p>\n
Weaving to support a traffic stop has to be more than a minimal amount, and here it was. State v. Pendergast<\/a>, 2008 Wisc. App. LEXIS 37 (January 15, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading