Defendant knew his jail calls would be recorded, so he consented when he made a call. United States v. Graham, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146824 (D. Mass. October 8, 2013).<\/p>\n
Riding the center line is not a reason for a stop. State v. Nguyen<\/a>, 2013 Iowa App. LEXIS 1038 (October 2, 2013).*<\/p>\n Defendant was stopped for window tinting and a lane change violation. When the stop was over, the officer said he\u2019d \u201cseen a lot of crazy things\u201d and wanted consent. Defendant refused consent, so the officer got his drug dog out and it alerted. The argument on appeal wasn\u2019t the same as in the trial court: \u201cConsidering Defendant’s written motion to suppress and his counsel’s oral argument, we find that Defendant did not raise in the trial court the same argument he is now raising on appeal \u2014 that Officer Henderson failed to acquire \u2018new\u2019 reasonable suspicion after the alleged conclusion of the traffic stop by the issuance of the Notice of Violation.\u201d State v. Arisme<\/a>, 123 So. 3d 1259 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2013).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading