Information that a cell phone was being used in drug trafficking was nexus to one phone for a search warrant. As to the other phone, probable cause is actually lacking, and the tracking of that phone is suppressed. United States v. Moore, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167606 (D. Minn. Dec. 15, 2015).<\/p>\n
Because the officers\u2019 testimony at the suppression hearing was suspect, the court finds no reasonable suspicion for the stop and frisk of defendant leading to his gun charge. The government failed to carry its burden of proof on applicability of any exceptions to the warrant requirement. United States v. Williams, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168926 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2015).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s spontaneous response to \u201cdo you have any weapons on your person\u201d of \u201cnot on my person but in my truck\u201d was reasonable suspicion to look for it. United States v. Randolph, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167376 (W.D.Mo. Dec. 15, 2015), R&R 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150718 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 6, 2015),*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Information that a cell phone was being used in drug trafficking was nexus to one phone for a search warrant. As to the other phone, probable cause is actually lacking, and the tracking of that phone is suppressed. United States … Continue reading