Just because officers planned to stop defendant if they had a traffic offense to justify it doesn\u2019t mean that they weren\u2019t credible when they testified there was a traffic violation. United States v. Murphy, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189184 (S.D. W. Va. Oct. 17, 2024).* (Police do that all the time, and often they have probable cause for the stop for the underlying offense they\u2019re looking at. Their point is to misdirect to the accused on who their informant might be.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The search of plaintiff\u2019s place was valid as a parole search even if no reasonable suspicion under state law. Williams v. Brown, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189255 (W.D. Ark. Sep. 6, 2024),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188443 (W.D. Ark. Oct. 16, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cUpon de novo review, the Court finds Defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle and lacks standing. To start, Defendant was only an invited guest and a recent passenger in the vehicle, and therefore has a lesser privacy interest. Also, in considering the factors laid out in Smith, Defendant does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy sufficient for standing. Defendant did not have the keys to the vehicle \u2026, and there is no evidence that Defendant regularly stored his personal belongings in the vehicle.\u201d The fact he was being given a ride to a party is not standing. United States v. Dove, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189341 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 17, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Just because officers planned to stop defendant if they had a traffic offense to justify it doesn\u2019t mean that they weren\u2019t credible when they testified there was a traffic violation. United States v. Murphy, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189184 (S.D. … Continue reading