Defendant was under investigation for a violation of the Clean Water Act, and the government obtained from the USMJ an order permitting entry. The order itself is not unreasonable and does not violate the Fourth Amendment just because defendant is under investigation. United States v. Acquest Wehrle LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42789 (W.D. N.Y. April 30, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s denial of ownership of stolen credit cards and a gun in the car was an abandonment and a waiver of standing at the time of arrest. \u201cHernandez claims it would be illogical for the Court not to find standing when the government has charged him with possession of a firearm based on the firearm found in the vehicle. While it does seem somewhat illogical, the Court cannot create standing where none exists.\u201d United States v. Hernandez, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42922 (D. Idaho May 3, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Use of the \u201ctwo second rule of thumb\u201d that a vehicle was following too close does not make the stop unreasonable. United States v. Hunter, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42865 (D. Kan. April 30, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading