Apartment complex manager\u2019s office reported to narcs that what appeared to be drug and money exchanges were occurring at regular intervals on a cul-de-sac in the apartment complex, and occupants were complaining. The exchanges occurred between non-tenants. The police surveilled and another exchange occurred, and that was reasonable suspicion for a stop. United States v. Woods, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 637 (N.D. Ind. January 5, 2010)*:<\/p>\n
The Court finds the following facts to be specific and articulable facts giving rise to a particularized and reasonable suspicion that the occupants of the two vehicles meeting at the Plumwood Apartments on March 31, 2009, were engaged in illegal drug trafficking. Twice a month over the course of several months, two men backed their vehicles up to a wooded area at the end of a cul-de-sac in an apartment complex. The two men would meet briefly, just long enough to exchange a loaded garbage bag for a duffel bag. They were not tenants of the apartment complex, and the vehicles did not belong to anyone who lived at the complex. One of the cars that was always present was from Ohio. Only one road provided access to the meeting spot, thus allowing the men to see any approaching threats and view possible police presence.<\/p>\n
The behavior of these individuals, viewed from the perspective of experienced narcotics detectives, reasonably suggested that the occupants of the vehicles were at the apartment complex for the purpose of conducting a drug deal.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Consenter had apparent authority to consent: She\u2019d lived there two months, shared bank statements mailed to that address, came and went as she pleased. United States v. Bouie, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 960 (D. Utah January 6, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Open shed door and open camper door was a reasonable belief that a burglary occurred and justified a warrantless entry. United States v. Wells, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122391 (E.D. Mo. December 15, 2009).*<\/p>\n
Delay in stopping, furtive movements, and smell of marijuana smoke justified a frisk of the car. The car was also registered at the location of a recent drive-by. United States v. Barefield, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 625 (D. Kan. January 5, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading