Defendant\u2019s admission that he hung out with pot smokers was enough to justify a parole search of his premises. Under Pennsylvania law, however, the parole officer had to have reasonable suspicion for a search of his car for drugs, and that was lacking in this case. United States v. Rivera, 727 F. Supp. 2d 367 (E.D. Pa. July 22, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s claim that defense counsel was ineffective for not seeking a copy of the 911 call that reported a gang fight was about to start was hardly valid, considering officers responding to the call saw defendant with a shotgun in hand and arrested him. That was the basis for his arrest, not the call. Rivera v. United States, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73976 (D. Conn. July 22, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s investigative detention was justified. There was a murder in the neighborhood the day before, and officers were in the area to prevent a retaliatory shooting. Defendant\u2019s car was swerving and was pulled over, and there were furtive movements in the car as officers approached. This was reasonable. United States v. Clemmons, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73666 (W.D. Tenn. July 21, 2010), R&R, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73750 (W.D. Tenn. February 5, 2010).*<\/p>\n
While there may have been innocent explanations for the defendant meeting for a probable drug deal, there was still probable cause. \u201c\u2018Even if there is an innocent explanation, as long as there is a reasonable probability that there is criminal activity afoot, despite the presence of other probabilities, probable cause is present.\u2019 United States v. Myrick, No. 97 CR 197, 1997 WL 564673, at *12 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 3, 1997) (quoting United States v. Dorfman, 542 F. Supp. 345, 359 (N.D. Ill.1982)). The possibility that Bennett may have been planning to meet Atkins for shopping or a meal does not therefore vitiate the possibility that Bennett and Atkins were meeting for a drug deal. See id. Taken together, Bennett\u2019s actions \u2018are difficult to explain as an innocent exchange, but quite easily understood, especially when observed by experienced narcotics officers, as a common method of conducting a drug deal.\u2019 Funches, 327 F.3d at 586.\u201d United States v. Bennett, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73551 (N.D. Ill. July 21, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading