Defendant was stopped driving a rental car four hours after the rental expired and he was not an authorized driver. He doesn\u2019t show standing. United States v. Maiden, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192555 (D. Minn. Sep. 5, 2023), adopted 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191510 (D. Minn. Oct. 25, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Appellant\u2019s argument that the stop was extended without reasonable suspicion fails because this was a probation search that didn\u2019t need it. United States v. Orey, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 28524 (5th Cir. Oct. 26, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant admits his stop was reasonable because his brake lights were out. \u201cUnder Whren, that the officers, including Agent Hadzewycz, subjectively were motivated to stop the van based on suspicion that driver Rivera was the supplier for an imminent narcotics transaction did not detract from the reasonableness of the traffic stop.\u201d Ten kgs of fentanyl not suppressed based on inventory exception. United States v. Rivera, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192444 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant was stopped driving a rental car four hours after the rental expired and he was not an authorized driver. He doesn\u2019t show standing. United States v. Maiden, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192555 (D. Minn. Sep. 5, 2023), adopted 2023 … Continue reading