Defendant\u2019s stop for speeding was justified. \u201cOfficer Petterson testified that he decided to impound the Acura because the Acura was not registered to Reilly; the owner was not present; both occupants of the vehicle were being taken into custody; the Acura would have had its license plates removed; and the Acura was parked at the base of a ramp on a major highway in a high traffic area.\u201d The officer failing to cite the specific provision of the inventory policy in his testimony wasn\u2019t required to make it lawful. United States v. Reilly, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163779 (D.Minn. Nov. 4, 2016).<\/p>\n
Ordering defendant out of his apartment at gunpoint and handcuffing him was an arrest and it was with probable cause because he matched the description of a man involved in a shooting and an empty shell casing was found outside his apartment door where the shooting allegedly took place. United States v. Brooks, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165041 (D.Nev. Nov. 17, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s stop for speeding was justified. \u201cOfficer Petterson testified that he decided to impound the Acura because the Acura was not registered to Reilly; the owner was not present; both occupants of the vehicle were being taken into custody; the … Continue reading