Defendant was a passenger in a livery cab stopped in the Bronx for failing to signal, and the officer approached the cab and defendant allegedly denied ownership of the plastic bag in the back of the cab. The court does not credit the officer\u2019s testimony because it was recollected only on the eve of the hearing on the motion to suppress over a year after the arrest. Also, defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the back of the cab while he was sitting in it, as shown by his trying to hide the bag of drugs. United States v. Bulluck, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47577 (S.D. N.Y. May 13, 2010):<\/p>\n
As to the subjective prong of this analysis — whether Bulluck by his conduct exhibited a subjective expectation of privacy — this Court finds that he did manifest such a subjective expectation. According to both Officer Robinson and Officer Doyle, when the police approached the livery cab, Bulluck sought to stuff the plastic bag under the front driver’s seat, presumably to hide the bag. Under such circumstances, the Second Circuit and other courts have found that defendants have demonstrated a subjective expectation of privacy.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Defendant consented to the entry of his house, and then he was arrested for smoking marijuana inside. United States v. Raymond, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47942 (N.D. Okla. May 14, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading