\u201cThe officers activated their lights and sirens and pulled the Crown Victoria over for a purported traffic stop.\u201d Defendant made furtive movements. The court does not find at all credible the officer\u2019s testimony that he could see the crack in defendant\u2019s windshield as a basis for the traffic stop in this case, and the stop is suppressed. United States v. Gaines, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130111 (D. Md. December 8, 2010)*:<\/p>\n
In addition to those facts discussed above, this Court will now highlight several further findings of fact relevant to the analysis of this case. First, it is uncontested that there is indeed a crack in right portion of the windshield of the Crown Victoria. However, as will be discussed in more detail below, this Court does not believe it was possible for the police officers to see the crack in the windshield as they have described it. Furthermore, it is similarly uncontested that Officer Shetterly discovered the gun in the Defendant’s waistband before Defendant made any evasive or assaultive movements towards the officers. It was only after yelling \u201cGUN\u201d that the Defendant became violent. The legal effect of this last fact will be discussed in the following sections.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\u201cWhen a search warrant is reviewed for a sufficiency-of-probable cause determination, its supporting affidavit must be read in its entirety and construed in a common sense and nontechnical manner.\u201d There was clearly a \u201cfair probability\u201d defendant was involved in sexual exploitation of a child, which defendant does not challenge; only nexus for warrants for his Internet accounts. That argument also fails, so the good faith exception saves this search, too. United States v. Noyes, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130041 (W.D. Pa. December 8, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading