Defendant was a passenger in a vehicle with an LPN that did not come back to it. When stopped, the officer could see muriatic acid and tubing in the front seat. He got the occupants out, and defendant\u2019s jacket had a bulge. Because defendant had an assault with a weapon prior, the officer asked for permission to conduct a patdown, and defendant didn\u2019t consent. The officer told him he was going to do the patdown and defendant would be arrested for obstruction if he resisted. Defendant removed a package of hypodermic needles from his pocket. He then admitted he had meth on him. The patdown and the finding of the meth was reasonable; his admissions are suppressed. United States v. Chartier, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150778 (N.D. Iowa October 21, 2013),* R&R 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154443 (N.D. Iowa August 16, 2013).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s merely touching the white line was not an offense under Georgia law, but the court finds reasonable suspicion from other factors. \u201c Based on (1) these observations; (2) Spruiell’s understanding that the hours between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m. are \u2018typical alcohol serving hours for clubs\u2019; and (3) his experience that drivers who are under the influence commonly fail to maintain their lanes, Trooper Spruiell suspected that Defendant was driving while intoxicated.\u201d United States v. Bryson, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151091 (N.D. Ga. October 21, 2013).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading