Defendant\u2019s stop was without reasonable suspicion of any criminal activity. While other criminal activity had occurred at or near some of the residences in that area, and defendant appeared nervous and was “breathing heavily,” and the officer found his answers to the officer’s questions to be “inconsistent,” there was nothing else to show crime was \u201ca foot.\u201d Therefore, no reasonable suspicion. United States v. Kessler, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166172 (W.D. Mo. October 15, 2013), Adopted by, Motion granted by United States v. Kessler, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165546 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 21, 2013).<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s claim that an attorney for a bank illegally seized records during a bankruptcy was both waived and a private action claim. United States v. Prince<\/a>, 547 Fed. Appx. 587 (5th Cir. 2013).*<\/p>\n Defendant\u2019s 2255 search claim was defaulted by appealing before without asserting it. Not only that, the issue would fail. Benford v. United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166252 (N.D. Ala. November 22, 2013).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading