Defendant\u2019s stop was for a traffic violation and with reasonable suspicion he was involved in drug dealing. His frisk and vehicle frisk was justified by the drug dealing RS alone. United States v. Jones, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82741 (M.D. Ala. June 29, 2011)*:<\/p>\n
Here, when Stacey conducted the patdown, he believed that the driver of the vehicle was en route to purchase narcotics with a large quantity of cash. He also believed that Jones had taken an extended time to stop his vehicle and that he appeared to be nervous. Prior cases have recognized that \u201c\u2018investigative detentions involving suspects in vehicles are especially fraught with danger to police officers,\u2019\u201d noting the \u201cinordinate risk confronting an officer as he approaches a person seated in an automobile.\u201d Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1047-1048 (1983) (citation omitted). In addition, individuals involved in narcotics trafficking are often armed. United States v. Cruz, 909 F.2d 422, 424 (11 Cir. 1989); … <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The CI\u2019s believable information dealt with past, recent, and likely current possession of drugs in defendant\u2019s house, so the warrant was not stale. State v. Marsing<\/a>, 244 Ore. App. 556, 260 P.3d 739 (2011).*<\/p>\n
The findings of consent are supported by the record. United States v. Marin-Hipolito<\/a>, 434 Fed. Appx. 346 (5th Cir. 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading