Defendant\u2019s stop was justified because of his \u201cseverely cracked\u201d windshield. When stopped, he was agitated and a patdown was required. Part of the delay of the stop was defendant refusing to timely produce his DL and insurance papers, and the officer put him in the patrol car. He said they were in the glove compartment, but he refused the officer permission to go in the car to look for them. The officer called for a drug dog, \u201ccontinued his efforts to obtain and verify defendant\u2019s information.\u201d The dog arrived and sniffed the car [apparently, because the opinion doesn\u2019t say] before the DL was produced. The dog alerted, and the trunk was opened, and a gun was found in the trunk in a diaper bag. Defendant was a felon in possession. United States v. Marzette, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127968 (W.D. Okla. December 2, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Officers stopped one parolee at a hotel for violating conditions of parole, and it was reasonably suspected that he was a drug dealer. Another parolee was found at the same room, so it was reasonable to suspect that he was associating with a known drug offender, and his search was based on his parole condition. United States v. Alston<\/a>, 626 F.3d 397 (8th Cir. 2010).*<\/p>\n The search of defendant\u2019s car was justified either by search incident or inevitable discovery by the inventory that took place after his custodial arrest and because the vehicle registration had expired and it could not be driven. United States v. Zareck, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128372 (W.D. Pa. December 3, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading