Surveying the cases, the general rule is that \u201cresidence\u201d in a search warrant is synonymous with \u201cpremises\u201d and includes outbuildings and vehicles on the premises. Defendant\u2019s truck on the street was separately subjected to a dog alert, and that was enough for it. United States v. Hibbs, 905 F. Supp. 2d 862 (C.D. Ill. 2012).<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s and passenger\u2019s travel plans and history revealed during a general conversation while waiting for his DL information to come back was reasonable suspicion. State v. Stover<\/a>, 388 S.W.3d 138 (Mo. 2012).*<\/p>\n Defendant filed a motion to suppress GPS and medical records, and the government responded that it would only use the evidence for impeachment if the defendant testified, which it could do. This made the motions moot. United States v. Baumgartner, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136949 (E.D. Tenn. August 30, 2012).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading