Defendant\u2019s argument in a motion to reconsider that his roommates were acting as agents of the police in conducting a private search that turned up child pornography was not timely. That was not the purpose of a motion to reconsider. United States v. Jones, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139561 (W.D. Tenn. September 23, 2011).*<\/p>\n
Inconsistent and nervous responses, the suspicious method of travel, and failure to stop for a mile was reasonable suspicion. United States v. Cotton, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139636 (E.D. Tex. November 7, 2011)*:<\/p>\n
Lt. Viator testified that the inconsistent and nervous responses, the suspicious method of travel, and the fact that Cotton drove for nearly one mile before pulling the vehicle to the shoulder all contributed to a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. The undersigned agrees. Given the totality of the circumstances, Lt. Viator’s questioning exemplified a graduated response to emerging facts, and therefore does not constitute a Fourth Amendment violation. Brigham<\/a> at 508 & nn. 5-6 (\u201c\u2018[D]etention, not questioning, is the evil at which Terry\u2019s second prong is aimed.\u2019\u201d) (citation omitted).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Failure to file a suppression motion was a waiver of the issue for appeal. Carroll v. State<\/a>, 202 Md. App. 487, 32 A.3d 1090 (2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading