Traffic stop was with a factual basis, but the officer apparently and legally abandoned it to investigate drugs. Using a drug dog within a couple of minutes of the stop was not unreasonable. United States v. Ramsey, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116195 (E.D. Tenn. November 9, 2009)*:<\/p>\n
Defendant does not dispute that only a few minutes elapsed between the stop and the alert by Red. Defendant also appears to concede the stop was not prolonged in order to deploy Red by admitting his argument does not turn on the length of the stop [Doc. 18 at 3]. That Red was deployed within a few minutes of the stop is not determinative of whether the detention was constitutional. Bell, 555 F.3d at 539. The mere two-minute lapse of time between the stop and the deployment of Red, however, certainly bolsters the undisputed video evidence that Officer Curvin had not completed all traffic enforcement acts at the time of the deployment and alert. Thus, I FIND the traffic enforcement purpose of the stop was not concluded during the time Red was deployed and almost immediately alerted, in spite of the officers’ investigatory agenda. No evidence indicates Defendant was detained longer than reasonably necessary to complete the purpose of the stop or that the officers extended the duration of the stop to enable the dog sniff to occur. Therefore, I also FIND the officers acted with diligence and that Defendant was not detained any longer than necessary for the purpose for which he was initially pulled over — traffic enforcement. See, e.g., United States v. Garcia, 496 F.3d 495, 504 (6th Cir. 2007) (“the duration of the stop was reasonable; the canine sniff was performed within a half hour of the stop”); Bell, 555 F.3d at 541 (detention proper where it is no longer than reasonably necessary for officers to complete the purpose of the stop).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Violation of state law in not getting defendant before a state magistrate was not relevant to this case where defendant was promptly charged in federal court, too. The Fourth Amendment governs, not the violation of state law. United States v. Mott, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116117 (E.D. Tenn. December 14, 2009).*<\/p>\n
Defendant did not have an expectation of privacy in shipping containers stored on property belonging to another. The property was deeded to another, and the defendant sought to show the true financial relationship between them as to who had a mortgage and who owed what, but it did not overcome the fact that another owned the property and had control over it. The containers were left unattended, and, by all accounts, were abandoned. United States v. Swift, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116161 (D. Haw. December 14, 2009).*<\/p>\n
The seizure in this case depends on a search incident in violation of Gant<\/a>, so claimant\u2019s judgment on the pleadings is granted. United States v. $14,448.00 United States Currency, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116184 (E.D. Mo. December 14, 2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading