D.Mass.: Knowledge jail calls would be recorded is consent when a call is made

Defendant knew his jail calls would be recorded, so he consented when he made a call. United States v. Graham, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146824 (D. Mass. October 8, 2013).

Riding the center line is not a reason for a stop. State v. Nguyen, 2013 Iowa App. LEXIS 1038 (October 2, 2013).*

Defendant was stopped for window tinting and a lane change violation. When the stop was over, the officer said he’d “seen a lot of crazy things” and wanted consent. Defendant refused consent, so the officer got his drug dog out and it alerted. The argument on appeal wasn’t the same as in the trial court: “Considering Defendant’s written motion to suppress and his counsel’s oral argument, we find that Defendant did not raise in the trial court the same argument he is now raising on appeal — that Officer Henderson failed to acquire ‘new’ reasonable suspicion after the alleged conclusion of the traffic stop by the issuance of the Notice of Violation.” State v. Arisme, 123 So. 3d 1259 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2013).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.