The officer continued the conversation after giving the papers back to the defendant, and that made the detention unlawful. \u201cFinally, at the time when Trooper Sheets engaged Mr. Lopez in additional conversation, Trooper Sheets did not have an articulable suspicion of criminal activity. His additional questions were designed to see if something would turn up or if Mr. Lopez would implicate himself.\u201d Motion to suppress granted. United States v. Lopez, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26954 (D. Utah February 26, 2013).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s guilty plea waived the search issue, but it would lose on the merits because defendant didn\u2019t have standing. \u201cIt is well settled that there is no \u2018co-conspirator exception\u2019 to the rule that a defendant must have standing to contest the constitutionality of a search or seizure.\u201d United States v. Valdez, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26420 (W.D. La. February 3, 2013).*<\/p>\n
Request to \u201cpush open the door and look in the bedroom\u201d was a request to consent to enter the bedroom, not just stand at the door. United States v. Stone<\/a>, 510 Fed. Appx. 891 (11th Cir. 2013).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading