Defendant\u2019s car was stopped because there was a person in it wanted for drug offenses. The officers then called a drug dog that alerted on the car. The defendant did not show that the drug dog was not a \u201cwell trained\u201d dog [and why is it the defendant\u2019s burden to show that?]. As to the search of the defendant\u2019s house, there was a question of standing since he had been in jail for a year and the rent was unpaid, but the standing question does not need to be decided. Instead, it was a private search by the landlord. United States v. Claude X, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49046 (W.D. Mo. April 16, 2010).*<\/p>\n
The government never conceded that defendant had standing in the apartment with a working meth lab. Anyway, standing was decided in the direct appeal, so it could not be raised in this \u00a7 2255. Beckstead v. United States, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49138 (D. Utah May 18, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Defendant consented to the search for weapons. He even volunteered it before the officer could ask. United States v. Griffin, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49139 (D. Utah May 17, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading