Defendant had a privacy interest in a zippered bag he was carrying. When the police seized the bag at the time of his arrest, it could not be searched incident to his arrest at police headquarters when he was taken in. United States v. Scott, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52431 (S.D. N.Y. June 8, 2009):<\/p>\n
However, the search-incident-to-arrest exception does not justify the search of the backpack at the USPIS headquarters after it had been taken from Scott and reduced to the inspectors’ exclusive control. “Once law enforcement officers have reduced luggage or other personal property not immediately associated with the person of the arrestee to their exclusive control, and there is no longer any danger that the arrestee might gain access to the property to seize a weapon or destroy evidence, a search of that property is no longer an incident of the arrest.” United States v. Chadwick<\/a>, 433 U.S. 1, 15 (1977), overruled on other grounds by California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991). <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The subjective motive for a stop is irrelevant, and the frequency of stops adds nothing to that. United States v. Aranda-Diaz, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52749 (D. N.M. May 31, 2009)*:<\/p>\n
Under the standard from United States v. Botero-Ospina, the frequency with which Linson makes traffic stops or issues citations is not relevant to the validity of the stop. Moreover, Linson’s ulterior motive to investigate other illegal activity is not alone sufficient to invalidate a traffic stop based on an observed traffic violation. Rather, under the circumstances, Linson was justified in pulling Aranda-Diaz over after observing the red-light violation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading