Furtive movements in extremis (reclining in passenger seat and turning away from the officer as he approached and reaching for the waistband) justified a patdown. United States v. Craver, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63305 (S.D. Ohio June 4, 2010).*<\/p>\n
In this death penalty case, defendant was found to have consented to the search, so his lawyer was not ineffective for not challenging it. Pitchford v. State<\/a>, 45 So. 3d 216 (Miss. 2010).*<\/p>\n Ohio\u2019s burden of consent is clear and convincing evidence, more than a preponderance, and this consent satisfies that requirement. State v. Black<\/a>, 2010 Ohio 2916, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 2439 (2d Dist. June 25, 2010).*<\/p>\n Defendant abandoned drugs when he saw the police, and the seizure of the drugs was probable cause to arrest. State v. Taylor<\/a>, 2010 Ohio 2926, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 2445 (2d Dist. June 25, 2010).*<\/p>\n Considering all the details of reasonable suspicion along with the officer\u2019s experience, there was reasonable suspicion on the totality. United States v. Simpson<\/a>, 609 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading