While the 911 calls did not say that there was a domestic disturbance in progress, the officer could reasonably assume that when he arrived and assessed the situation, and that was exigency for an entry on these facts. United States v. Ladeaux, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37251 (D. S.D. March 16, 2012).*<\/p>\n
Defendant lost on his arrest issue on the merits on appeal, so he can\u2019t pursue it on a 2255. Martinez v. United States, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36781 (D. S.D. March 19, 2012).*<\/p>\n
Officers had reasonable suspicion first from a CI tip that \u201cLittle Rob\u201d was dealing meth from a red F-150. They later learned that it was defendant. Then, another officer in an \u201congoing investigation\u201d [never telling us the quality of this information] told this officer that defendant would be delivering meth and they set up surveillance. This was reasonable suspicion when defendant showed up. The traffic stop was reasonable based on a traffic offense. United States v. Harrelson<\/a>, 465 Fed. Appx. 866 (11th Cir. 2012) (unpublished).* [This case essentially says that a search on reasonable suspicion was proper because it never says there was probable cause for the search of the vehicle after the stop on reasonable suspicion or the traffic offense. If that\u2019s what it means, it\u2019s wrong. This may just be sloppy writing.]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading