Defendant files three motions to suppress. The first one was pro se and never mentioned that his stop was pretextual, that the headlights were actually on, and the stop was without reasonable suspicion. A later motion to suppress challenged the basis for the stop. At the hearing, defendant was questioned about the failure to challenge the basis for the stop the first time as a credibility attack, and it worked: The court finds defendant lacked crediblity on his version of the stop. Defendant\u2019s patdown during the stop was justified. \u201cHere, I find that Mr. Greene’s suspicious movement inside the vehicle, the nature of the neighborhood, and the Officer’s detection of a strong odor of illegal drugs were sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion to conduct a pat-down.\u201d United States v. Greene, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75854 (M.D. Pa. May 18, 2017).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant files three motions to suppress. The first one was pro se and never mentioned that his stop was pretextual, that the headlights were actually on, and the stop was without reasonable suspicion. A later motion to suppress challenged the … Continue reading