While the court is convinced that the stop was pretextual but with a factual basis, the Fourth Amendment provides no protection. United States v. Kellam, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14164 (D. Del. February 26, 2008):<\/p>\n
In the Court’s opinion, the vehicle being driven by the Government’s Informant was stopped because the Task Force officers believed Mr. Kellam had engaged in some activity related to drug trafficking during the trip to New York. The Court is convinced that the violations asserted as grounds for the stop of the vehicle existed, but the vehicle was stopped so as to permit the officers to search the vehicle for evidence of drug trafficking offenses Mr. Kellam was suspected of committing.<\/p>\n
Because the existing case law does not allow the Court to consider subjective or pretextual reasons for a Terry<\/em> stop, Mr. Kellam’s Motion must be denied.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
“‘[A] damages claim that “necessarily demonstrates the invalidity of [a] conviction,” may not be brought while the conviction stands.’ Gonzalez v. Entress<\/em>, 133 F.3d 551, 553 (7th Cir. 1998) (citing Heck<\/em><\/a>, 512 U.S. at 481-82).” White v. Madison County, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14145 (S.D. Ill. February 26, 2008).*<\/p>\n
Younger<\/em><\/a> bars litigating a search issue in federal court that is already pending in state court. Palacios v. City of Chicago, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13985 (N.D. Ill. February 20, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading