The trooper told defendant he was free to go handing back papers and saying \u201chave a nice trip.\u201d Then the trooper said \u201chave you got time for a couple of quick questions?,\u201d and the defendant agreed to talk, and the trooper asked about drugs. Defendant asked why, and he said he had \u201cindicators.\u201d He was not seized when he agreed to a drug dog coming to sniff the car. United States v. Bowman, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54194 (N.D. Iowa June 3, 2010)*:<\/p>\n
Here, Trooper Simmons had returned Defendant\u2019s driver\u2019s license, registration, and insurance papers, and told Defendant that he was free to leave. The video demonstrates that Simmons did not block Defendant\u2019s path to his vehicle, nor did he raise his voice or otherwise suggest that Defendant\u2019s compliance was required. In fact, when Simmons asked for permission to search the car, Defendant refused. Accordingly, Defendant apparently understood that he was not required to consent to Simmons\u2019 requests. When Simmons asked whether or not it would be \u201ccool\u201d for a canine to do a free air search of the car, Defendant agreed, responding \u201cyeah, that’s cool.\u201d The Court concludes that Defendant was not seized during the encounter with Simmons between the cars.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Police responding to a domestic disturbance call were given consent to search by the woman involved for a gun that the defendant with a prior conviction had put to her head. Also, it was in plain view when the officer came in. United States v. Moylan, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53619 (W.D. Mo. May 10, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading