The officer\u2019s version of Oregon law on what is an obscured LPN was a mistake of law and can\u2019t support the stop. During the stop, one passenger got out and stared intently at the officer. That wasn\u2019t reasonable suspicion. The driver\u2019s consent to wait for a drug dog did not extend to his passengers, necessarily stopped with him. United States v. Pina-Lopez, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32353 (D. Ore. March 8, 2013).<\/p>\n
Class action status denied to all persons strip searched under an \u201call persons present\u201d clause in all city police search warrants. Plaintiff prevailed in his case in the NY Court of Appeals, but can\u2019t represent all others subjected to it whenever. Mothersell v. City of Syracuse, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32085 (N.D. N.Y. March 8, 2013).*<\/p>\n
Considering all the testimony on consent, the court finds the testimony of the officers more credible and the consent valid. United States v. Abney, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31336 (D. N.J. March 6, 2013).*<\/p>\n
Back to blog<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading