Defendant was stopped for a cracked windshield, which it clearly was. \u201cOrdering Henderson to step out of the car was only a de minimis intrusion of his personal liberty, and it did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights.\u201d \u201cOfficer Putman detected a \u2018faint odor of marijuana\u2019 emanating from Miller’s vehicle; he testified that, in his experience, \u2018guns and drugs go together.\u2019 Officer Bartlett testified that Henderson seemed \u2018very nervous\u2019 while waiting in the passenger seat and that he was fidgeting toward the center console and his waistband.\u201d The officers communicated by hand signals and body language. United States v. Henderson, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184389 (W.D. Tenn. Dec. 7, 2016), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23802 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 21, 2017).<\/p>\n
\u201cCounsel was not constitutionally ineffective here for his decision not to challenge the arrest as lacking in probable cause\u201d because there was probable cause. United States v. Torres-Rodriguez, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29897 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 13, 2017),* adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29891 (N.D. Fla. March 2, 2017).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant was stopped for a cracked windshield, which it clearly was. \u201cOrdering Henderson to step out of the car was only a de minimis intrusion of his personal liberty, and it did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights.\u201d \u201cOfficer Putman … Continue reading