The two officers involved in defendant\u2019s stop and search of his person and car had somewhat different versions of what happened. Under either, the search of his person and car were both reasonable. Defendant had no DL which was an arrestable offense. As to one, the patdown incident to that led to drug paraphernalia, and that led to a search of his car. As to the other, the car was validly inventoried. Either was reasonable. United States v. Harris, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 767 (E.D.Mich. Jan. 3, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The affidavit for the warrant here was based on a CI\u2019s information, but it was detailed enough and suspicious circumstances were corroborated by the police, including that he was a drug dealer, he\u2019d received 25 bricks of heroin or fentanyl at his address, the address confirmed through the Parole Board, and then an apparent hand-to-hand sale right outside the house. United States v. Stevens<\/a>, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 100 (3d Cir. Jan. 3, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n Defendant\u2019s tracking warrant issue wasn\u2019t raised until after trial, so it\u2019s waived. United States v. Pickens, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 344 (D.Minn. Jan. 3, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The two officers involved in defendant\u2019s stop and search of his person and car had somewhat different versions of what happened. Under either, the search of his person and car were both reasonable. Defendant had no DL which was an … Continue reading