Defendant made a colorable claim that his indictment was based on an illegal search. Therefore, he is entitled to early discovery of the grand jury transcripts in an effort to prove that despite Calandra. United States v. Patiutka, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86021 (W.D.Va. June 30, 2015).<\/p>\n
The officers had significant information that defendant was involved in heroin distribution, and that justified a frisk for weapons. \u201cAt an investigatory stop, when an individual is suspected of drug involvement, it is reasonable for a police officer to believe that the individual may be armed and dangerous. United States v. Robinson, 119 F.3d 663, 667 (8th Cir. 1997).\u201d United States v. Anderson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86791 (N.D.Iowa June 30, 2015), adopted 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95187 (N.D.Iowa July 22, 2015).<\/p>\n
When defendant was stopped, his name came back as a \u201ccareer offender.\u201d While the electronic ticket writing program was preparing the ticket, the officer searched the console based on significant furtive movements making the officer fear a weapon. The trial court suppressed, but the court of appeals reversed. The search was reasonable. State v. Toussaint<\/a>, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 9992 (Fla. 5th DCA July 2, 2015).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant made a colorable claim that his indictment was based on an illegal search. Therefore, he is entitled to early discovery of the grand jury transcripts in an effort to prove that despite Calandra. United States v. Patiutka, 2015 U.S. … Continue reading