Defendant consented to talk to the officers because the circumstances indicated he was free to leave. A second officer involved in the stop was heading back to his car when the first officer asked about consent. United States v. Collins, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50344 (M.D. Ala. July 1, 2008).*<\/p>\n
Defendant was not entitled to CI’s identity that led to issuance of the search warrant. The charge was based on the surveillance of defendant after the warrant was issued, and the CI had nothing to do with that. State v. Messam<\/a>, 108 Conn. App. 744, 949 A.2d 1246 (2008).*<\/p>\n No Fourth Amendment claim lies for a traffic stop for talking on a cellphone without a handsfree device. There is no dispute that plaintiff was violating the ordinance, and the officers were entitled to qualified immunity at the minimum. Schor v. Daley, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50602 (N.D. Ill. June 30, 2008).*<\/p>\n Defendant signed a consent form for search of his residence without duress or acquiescence to police authority. United States v. Duncan, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50811 (S.D. Fla. July 2, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading