Officers saw 8-10 men congregated on a closed grocery store parking lot, and it was reasonable to approach them to see what was going on. The officer asked for defendant\u2019s ID and gave it back. That de-escalated the stop. Defendant finally consented to a search of his car, and it was not an involuntary consent. United States v. Tuggle, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16874 (W.D. Tenn. February 18, 2011).*<\/p>\n
While pretextual stops violate Washington law, speeding through a residential neighborhood was sufficient basis for a stop. State v. Weber<\/a>, 159 Wn. App. 779, 247 P.3d 782 (2011).*<\/p>\n The stop and search of defendant\u2019s car was based on the fact it was apparent that he was doing counter surveillance for a vehicle carrying drugs. He was watched as he paced the other car, stopping when it did. United States v. Slone<\/a>, 636 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2011).*<\/p>\n Defendant was properly denied a hearing in his \u00a7 2255 on his IAC search claim because he had no standing to question the search. Edmonds v. United States, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17054 (M.D. Ga. February 22, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading