Defendant\u2019s girlfriend owned the car, and they were traveling together on vacation. Given all the facts, this passenger had standing and a reasonable expectation of privacy that society would recognize and could exclude others from the car. United States v. Deysie, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108961 (D. Ariz. August 7, 2014).<\/p>\n
A suspicious license plate and conflicting stories justified extending the stop in this case. State v. Shook<\/a>, 2014-Ohio-3403, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 3335 (4th Dist. July 31, 2014).*<\/p>\n Statements made during an illegal stop aren\u2019t attenuated, so they are suppressed. State v. Hall, 339 Ore. 7, 115 P.3d 908 (2005) is elaborated upon. State v. Suppah<\/a>, 2014 Ore. App. LEXIS 1060 (August 6, 2014).*<\/p>\n Oregon requires detailed inventory policies, and a pair of shorts could not be inventoried because they aren\u2019t the kind of place where valuables are kept, even though a wallet was found in the shorts. State v. Hockersmith<\/a>, 2014 Ore. App. LEXIS 1055 (August 6, 2014).* [don\u2019t count on this working anywhere else].<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant\u2019s girlfriend owned the car, and they were traveling together on vacation. Given all the facts, this passenger had standing and a reasonable expectation of privacy that society would recognize and could exclude others from the car. United States v. … Continue reading