Defendant\u2019s \u201cforum shopping\u201d claim is rejected. A state judge did express some misgivings about the probable cause but was willing to sign off anyway, but the officer went to an AUSA for clarification, and it was determined that it was good enough for federal court. A USMJ issued the warrant, and there was probable cause. United States v. Rodriguez, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65000 (D. Conn. June 20, 2011).*<\/p>\n
Detailed information from a CI provided justification for defendant\u2019s stop, and defendant consented to a search of his person revealing 83g of cocaine. Hall v. State<\/a>, 310 Ga. App. 397 (2011).*<\/p>\n Defendant\u2019s traffic stop was justified by no signals when required. A drug dog almost immediately arrived, and the use of the dog did not prolong the stop at all. Nunnally v. State<\/a>, 310 Ga. App. 183, 713 S.E.2d 408 (2011).* [Update<\/strong> from a reader: “I wanted to let you know that Lexis’ analysis of the Nunnally case is incorrect or incomplete. The court overturned his drug conviction (but affirmed his traffic conviction) because the marijuana should have been suppressed. The key factor was that the officer testified that he was not really investigating a traffic violation, he was investigating a drug case. The court stated that even though the stop was only 8 minutes long, the officer had essentially given up on the traffic stop as soon as he asked dispatch for the defendant’s license information.”]<\/p>\n The car defendant was in stopped on the side of the road and the driver and passenger switched places. The officer stopped to see if there was a problem, and the former driver was found under the influence. The stop was valid as a community caretaking stop because the officer was not investigating a possible offense. People v. Dittmar<\/a>, 2011 IL App (2d) 91112, 352 Ill. Dec. 403, 954 N.E.2d 263 (2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading