Weaving truck was stopped, and the fact that the wind was blowing enough to possibly cause it was balanced out by the officer’s observation that other trucks did not have the same difficulty. Therefore, the initial stop was justified and reasonable. United States v. Egan, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61305 (D. Kan. August 25, 2006).*

Taking as true defendant’s representations in his moving papers, it was apparent that he did not have standing to challenge the search of the bedroom in the house where he used to stay, and others have stayed there since. United States v. Diggs, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60994 (S.D. N.Y. August 25, 2006).*

The question was the timing of consent, and oral consent granted before it was memorialized in a written form was still valid, so, if defendant’s coat was seized after the oral consent but before the written consent was signed, it was still valid here. State v. Jones, 2006 MT 209, 333 Mont. 294, 142 P.3d 851 (August 29, 2006).

Reasonable suspicion for use of a drug dog during an otherwise valid traffic stop was supported by defendant’s obvious nervousness, his prior record for drugs, and the fact he had parked outside a known drug house. And, counsel was not ineffective for chosing this approach over challenging it as a parole search. State v. Meza, 2006 MT 210, 333 Mont. 305, 143 P.3d 422 (August 29, 2006).*