The court credits the officer\u2019s testimony about the purpose of the search of defendant\u2019s car to be inventory. He made notes of the items found but not all made it into official reports. The court credits this was an innocent mistake and did not show pretext for an investigative search. United States v. Zelinger, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90968 (S.D.Tex. July 14, 2015).<\/p>\n
Defendant standing in his open garage did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy from arrest in what amounts to a public place. United States v. Juarez-Hernandez, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90869 (N.D.Iowa July 14, 2015).*<\/p>\n
After the traffic ticket was done, the officer had reasonable suspicion to continue the stop. \u201c… Barry, who had an out of state license, was not able to identify to whom the car he was driving belonged; his only response to Officer Williams’ inquiry was that Fadiga knew. When asked, Fadiga stated that the car belonged to a \u2018friend,\u2019 but when he procured a rental agreement, it indicated that neither he nor Barry were authorized to drive the vehicle.\u201d And there were other things. United States v. Fadiga, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91006 (N.D.Ind. July 14, 2015).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The court credits the officer\u2019s testimony about the purpose of the search of defendant\u2019s car to be inventory. He made notes of the items found but not all made it into official reports. The court credits this was an innocent … Continue reading