Probation officers with sheriff\u2019s deputies searched defendant\u2019s workplace and his adjoining apartment in excess of his probation condition. The government\u2019s motion to reconsider is denied. United States v. Garcia, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100499 (W.D. Wash. September 6, 2011).*<\/p>\n
The officer told defendant to remove his hands from his pockets, and bags of drugs fell out. The directive was without reasonable suspicion, and the drugs are suppressed. People v Pinckney<\/a>, 2011 NY Slip Op 51649, 2011 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4294 (Bronx Co. September 9, 2011).*<\/p>\n Defendant was subjected to a patdown because of his furtive movements and being known to always carry a gun, and the officer felt what clearly was a meth pipe. The search of the car was valid as a search incident or under the automobile exception. United States v. Chavez, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100855 (W.D. Mo. August 25, 2011).*<\/p>\n Just because defendant used fictitious names to set up cell phone accounts did not ipso facto deprive him of standing to contest a seizure and search of the phones. They were seized at the time of arrest, and they were lawfully searched. United States v. Moncur, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101475 (S.D. Fla. July 28, 2011)*; United States v. Martin, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101536 (S.D. Fla. July 28, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading