Of two coconspirators in a package containing drugs, the named sender has standing but the coconspirator does not. Stopping the UPS truck for a dog sniff of the packages did not interfere with any reasonable expectation of privacy. Besides, there was reasonable suspicion. United States v. Brown, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8024 (M.D.Pa. Jan. 14, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Knowing there were likely more weapons, a protective weapons search of a vehicle led to a plain view of an owner\u2019s manual for an AR-15 which was admissible in evidence. United States v. Williams<\/a>, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 1156 (4th Cir. Jan. 14, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n At 3 am, the officer was looking for potential car break-ins by a man previously described as carrying a black backpack. Then he found defendant entering cars wearing a black backpack. At this point, there was reasonable suspicion. The officer pulling his gun at first didn\u2019t convert the stop into a de facto arrest. United States v. Morrison, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8038 (M.D.Pa. Jan. 14, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Of two coconspirators in a package containing drugs, the named sender has standing but the coconspirator does not. Stopping the UPS truck for a dog sniff of the packages did not interfere with any reasonable expectation of privacy. Besides, there … Continue reading