Defendant did not sufficiently strive to withdraw the consent to search his vehicle. United States v. Gutierrez, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113454 (D. Neb. May 6, 2008)*:<\/p>\n
There is no evidence the defendant attempted to attract the attention of Deputy Maddux. Although, the defendant said, \u201cno\u201d and \u201csir,\u201d the defendant did not raise his voice, attempt to exit the vehicle, roll down a window, honk the horn, or make any other gesture to gain attention. The defendant was under some obligation to make his intent to withdraw consent known to Deputy Maddux. See id. Failure of the defendant to do so does not render Deputy Maddux’s conduct unconstitutional.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
When the defendant tried to get out of the police car, the officer grabbed for his arm, so defendant knew that he was not free to leave. At the time, the officer did not have articulable reasonable suspicion. United States v. Moss, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113459 (D. Neb. June 10, 2008).*<\/p>\n
Defendant was stopped for window overtint, and he gave a false name to the police officer. The stop thus continued with probable cause. United States v. Barrera-Gonzalez, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113453 (D. Neb. May 21, 2008).*<\/p>\n
The affidavit for search warrant showed probable cause based on the totality of the facts and the officer\u2019s experience. United States v. Capps, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113476 (S.D. Ga. May 14, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading