Collective knowledge of police doctrine applied to traffic stop for speeding where officer radioed ahead to another. United States v. Allen, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5565 (W.D. Ark. January 4, 2011)* [Note: Obviously. If not, how could a spotter in an airplane or an officer running fixed radar with somebody else doing the stopping ever work?]<\/p>\n
Search warrant application for drug dealing to minors sought also search of defendant\u2019s computer and cell phone. It is logical to find evidence of drug dealing on the cell phone from calls made to arrange transactions. After the warrant was issued but before it was served, the police developed information that there might be child pornography on the computer transferred from the cell phone. The computer was searched under the warrant and child pornography was found. Since defense counsel did not challenge the search on the ground that they expected to find child pornography, the search is valid. United States v. Chappell, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140051 (W.D. N.Y. October 15, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Defendant was stopped because the officer knew that his license was suspended. Also, the officer had probable cause based on a CI\u2019s information about drug dealing, so Gant does not apply to this search. United States v. Hambrick<\/a>, 630 F.3d 742 (8th Cir. 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading