The affidavit for the search warrant for defendant\u2019s cell phone showed more than a \u201cfair probability\u201d that evidence of drug dealing would be found there. United States v. Jauregui, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18385 (D. Minn. February 9, 2011).*<\/p>\n
Merely because the officer gets the driver out of the car and summons him back to the patrol car for a few questions and leaves the passenger does not make a stop unreasonable. United States v. Legge, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3693 (10th Cir. February 23, 2011) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n
Collectively, the information showed reasonable suspicion: inconsistent travel plans, third party rental car, nervousness (a minor factor), except this was excessive, and prior drug arrest (a minor factor). Consent was valid. United States v. Davis<\/a>, 636 F.3d 1281 (10th Cir. 2011).*<\/p>\n The district court correctly denied defendant\u2019s motion to suppress on an alternate ground, so defense counsel could not be ineffective for not further pressing the other ground which would not have mattered. United States v. Smith<\/a>, 415 Fed. Appx. 826 (9th Cir. 2011) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading