Defendant was arrested for trespassing at a Wal-Mart, and the officer, with some knowledge defendant might have a firearm or two, conducted a protective weapons search of a 2’x3′ camera case finding drugs. The search incident was invalid because the camera case could not hold a firearm. United States v. Leffler, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19046 (D. Neb. February 4, 2010):<\/p>\n
The problem, however, for the government in this case, whether analyzed under Gant or Long, is that the search must be limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden. Here, the officers’ stated concern was a firearm or the two firearms mentioned in Officer Velasquez’s pass-along book information. It is not logical or reasonable to believe that a firearm was hidden within a 2-inch by 3-inch camera case. Nor was the incriminating character of the camera case immediately apparent.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
[Well, couldn\u2019t it hold a really small gun? They exist, and I\u2019ve seen them in court. Maybe the government did not argue it that way, or the guns the officers expected were typical and larger.]<\/p>\n
Older information in a search warrant application was \u201crefreshed\u201d by trash pulls a week before and the day of the search warrant. The result of the trash pulls also showed nexus. United States v. Kenney, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19012 (E.D. Ky. March 3, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Collective knowledge rule applies to reasonable suspicion, and officers here had it. The stop was not extended without reasonable suspicion. United States v. Goins, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18951 (W.D. La. February 4, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading