Defendant was stopped because one taillight was dimmer than the other, but not burned out. The court finds the stop was unreasonable and not a mistake of law under Heien, and the motion to suppress is granted. United States v. Mota, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2441 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2016).<\/p>\n
The totality of the circumstances shows that defendant consented during the traffic stop which had reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. Defendant was told when he hesitated over searching a box in the car that he didn\u2019t have to open it, and then he admitted that drugs were in the box, and that adds to proof of consent. \u201cPark does not argue that he withdrew consent to search the trunk or the Bath & Body Works box within it during the exchange between himself and Marlow. And even if he did withdraw consent at that point, Park informed Marlow that the box contained illegal materials at the same time that he expressed discomfort with Marlow continuing the search, so Park would have been authorized to search the Bath & Body Works box. See United States v. Ledford, 218 F.3d 684, 687-88 (7th Cir. 2000).\u201d United States v. Park, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1727 (S.D.Ill. Jan. 7, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant was stopped because one taillight was dimmer than the other, but not burned out. The court finds the stop was unreasonable and not a mistake of law under Heien, and the motion to suppress is granted. United States v. … Continue reading