Defendant received three packages over time from China and the Postal Inspector admitted there was no probable cause after receipt of the second, and the court finds there wasn\u2019t for the third either. China may be an exporter of controlled substances to the U.S. [as well as electronics bought off eBay] but there was no effort at all to confirm the presence of drugs in the packages. When defendant received this package, officers came up on him to arrest or get consent, and he \u201cback pedaled\u201d into his dwelling. This was not exigency. The protective sweep revealed some contraband, and the view was unlawful. United States v. Graham, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135545 (D.R.I. Oct. 5, 2015).<\/p>\n
Defendant was encountered by a plain clothes officer in an open parking lot, and he admitted having drugs on him. That justified his detention. United States v. Mitchell, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136671 (D.Me. Oct. 6, 2015).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s stop for walking down the middle of the road was with reasonable suspicion. United States v. Coleman, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138048 (S.D.Ind. Oct. 9, 2015).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant received three packages over time from China and the Postal Inspector admitted there was no probable cause after receipt of the second, and the court finds there wasn\u2019t for the third either. China may be an exporter of controlled … Continue reading