Furtive movements after a stop cannot be used to justify the stop. There was reasonable suspicion for the stop from observable factors, the CIs, and they were corroborated some. United States v. Serrano, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95175 (E.D. Pa. July 8, 2013).*<\/p>\n
Defendant was stopped on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, based on information they had. When the officer talked to the driver he asked if the officer had \u201canything illegal\u201d and he nodded. A patdown revealed it in the groin area, and the officer undid his belt to get it out of his underwear. This wasn\u2019t classified as a strip search, but it was nearly one on a busy highway. Nevertheless, it wasn\u2019t unreasonable. Also, a state officer is not barred under the Fourth Amendment from stopping somebody on a highway that\u2019s in federal jurisdiction, but the feds were somewhat involved and condoned it. United States v. Madriz<\/a>, 532 Fed. Appx. 353 (4th Cir. 2013).*<\/p>\n The motion to suppress is denied after oral argument but without a hearing. The defendants\u2019 concessions about the case are enough for the police to have been justified in their actions in stopping and detaining defendants. United States v. Drabo, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95036 (E.D. Mich. July 9, 2013).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading