The traffic stop was without reasonable suspicion. As a back up argument, the government argued reasonable suspicion that the defendant was involved in drug activity. \u201cIn drawing objective and reasonable inferences from these observations, it can be concluded, at best, that a man drove to the same hotel and took the elevator to the same hotel floor where a suspected drug dealer was known to be staying, and left driving a car that might have previously been seized in a DEA drug investigation.\u201d That’s not reasonable suspicion. United States v. Tootoo, 802 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (D. Haw. 2011).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s interaction with the officer here was consensual on the totality of circumstances. \u2018The Tenth Circuit has also made clear that \u2018no single factor can dictate whether a seizure occurred.\u2019 Hill, 199 F.3d at 1148. Considering the facts of this case in light of these legal principles, the court concludes that the interaction between the defendant and Officer Kaufman amounted to a consensual encounter that did not implicate the Fourth Amendment.\u201d United States v. Flores, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77291 (D. Utah July 14, 2011).*<\/p>\n
The evidence supports the conclusion that defendant consented to the search of his bags at a train station. United States v. Brown<\/a>, 438 Fed. Appx. 203 (4th Cir. 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading