Coded language on wiretap supported probable cause for a vehicle stop

Officers had probable cause to stop defendant and conduct a search incident based on wiretap conversations and their reasonable conclusions from coded language that the defendant would be carrying drugs at the time in question. This was opinion testimony that was unobjected to. United States v. Hayes, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20920 (D. Kan. March 11, 2008).*

Seizure of plaintiff’s legal papers in prison states no claim because the Fourth Amendment does not apply in a prison. Thompson v. Aviles, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21031 (D. N.J. March 18, 2008).*

In a civil case against an allegedly unreasonable parole search, the ability of the defendants to articulate a basis is not enough for summary judgment for the defendants. Plaintiff has to be able to cross examine that basis or the protection against harassing or vexatious parole searches becomes meaningless. Smith v. City of Oakland, 538 F. Supp. 2d 1217 (N.D. Cal. 2008).*

Argument that defense counsel ineffectively argued his motion to suppress that his trailer was a home not just a trailer was thoroughly [and creatively] argued, and defendant lost on appeal. Therefore, he cannot bring a § 2255 claim against the lawyer. United States v. Barajas-Avalos, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20704 (D. Ore. March 12, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.