While there was no traffic violation justifying the stop, the mere presence of a work van driving slow in this rural Vermont area where there was no attractions to a trained border patrol agent strongly supported reasonable suspicion that the van was looking for a place to drop persons or drugs. United States v. Funez-Pineda, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121926 (D. Vt. October 20, 2011)*:<\/p>\n
In this case, Agent Hartness did not observe the operator of the vehicle, nor did he see the operator commit any traffic violations. A record check on the license plate did not return any suspicious information. Additionally, Agent Hartness did not observe that the van was carrying excess weight.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, the work van\u2019s status as a vehicle associated with smuggling, its out-of-state plates, its presence in a sparsely populated area of Vermont with no local attractions and with no discernable purpose, the early time of day, the van\u2019s prolonged slow speed, and the proximity of Route 114 in Norton to the border all contribute to a reasonable suspicion that the van\u2019s operator may have been engaged in smuggling activity and was looking for a place to pick up or drop off a person or contraband. <\/p>\n
In analyzing the relevant facts, the court regards them from the perspective of a trained Border Patrol agent. …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The 22 page affidavit for the search warrant clearly showed probable cause, and it supported search and seizure of electronic devices, here a thumb drive, where nexus was shown. United States v. Mehilove, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121247 (D. Minn. September 15, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading