Defendant failed to show standing to challenge seizure of the GPS in vehicles he sometimes was a passenger in. United States v. Mims, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72333 (D.N.J. Apr. 20, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There was reasonable suspicion to extend this stop based on observations and inconsistent stories from the occupants. United States v. Mendez, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72410 (D.S.D. Apr. 20, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Denying you were even in a car denies standing to a search of the car you don\u2019t own or lawfully possess. United States v. Lark, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72492 (S.D.W.Va. Apr. 20, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIn sum, while the Court finds Agent Lopez’s testimony credible, based upon the totality of the circumstances, the Court concludes that there was no reasonable suspicion for him to stop the defendant. An individual driving a clean, newer model, rental car, on an area of the highway that is both close to the border and frequently traveled by locals and tourists, while wearing a mask during the height of a global pandemic, who fails to look over at an officer that pulls alongside her for a few seconds before passing her, is not sufficiently unusual to warrant a stop.\u201d United States v. Johnson, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72590 (D.Ariz. Apr. 20, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant failed to show standing to challenge seizure of the GPS in vehicles he sometimes was a passenger in. United States v. Mims, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72333 (D.N.J. Apr. 20, 2022). There was reasonable suspicion to extend this stop … Continue reading