The protective sweep of defendant\u2019s house was invalid, and the government\u2019s raising that issue three times without a motion to reconsider borders on being impertinent. Nevertheless, there was a search warrant independently issued, and that cured the view of the protective sweep. United States v. Gillespie, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71473 (E.D. Mich. July 1, 2011).*<\/p>\n
Defendant was stopped for talking on a cell phone. Once stopped, the police were free to look at the interior of his car. He also consented to a search of the car. United States v. Pichardo, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72045 (D. V.I. July 5, 2011).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s detention was lawful under Michigan v. Summers<\/a>, so defense counsel was not ineffective for not raising it. United States v. Bailey<\/a>, 652 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading