Defendant’s use of a fictitious name to ship a package of drugs manifested a lack of an expectation of privacy in the package. United States v. Knuckles, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32415 (M.D. Pa. March 24, 2008).*<\/p>\n
Officers conducted a consent search of a room looking for a person. In plain view, syringes were found, and the seizure was lawful and not outside the scope of the original consent since the officer did not have to open another container or move something to see them. United States v. Troxel, 547 F. Supp. 2d 1190 (D. Kan. 2008).*<\/p>\n
Defendant’s stop was valid based on a license discrepancy, and the officer had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop. United States v. Garrison, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32523 (S.D. Ohio April 4, 2008).*<\/p>\n
Defendants’ stop was based on a specific citizen complaint of brandishing a weapon and casing a place to rob it, so it was reasonable to stop defendants’ car which matched the description. United States v. Gadsden, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32432 (M.D. Pa. March 24, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading