Defendant was a passenger and had been given permission to drive this car 10 minutes before the stop, so he had standing (although \u201cit\u2019s a close call\u201d). When he didn\u2019t have a DL, the officer ordered him out of the car and then there were furtive movements rising to reasonable suspicion for a frisk. United States v. Reynolds, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140786 (D.Kan. Oct. 11, 2016).<\/p>\n
The trial court did not err in not requiring the state to disclose the name of the snitch that did the controlled buys that led to the search warrant for defendant\u2019s house. The snitch had nothing to add to the merits of the case because the controlled buys weren\u2019t charged. Woodruff v. State<\/a>, 2016 Ga. App. LEXIS 618 (Nov. 3, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant was a passenger and had been given permission to drive this car 10 minutes before the stop, so he had standing (although \u201cit\u2019s a close call\u201d). When he didn\u2019t have a DL, the officer ordered him out of the … Continue reading