Defendant was subjected to a patdown, and nothing was found. After he was arrested, he was patted down again, and drugs were found in a sock. Assuming the first patdown was unreasonable, the second wasn’t because of additional facts coming to light. State v. Willette, 2013 Ohio 223, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 163 (4th Dist. January 23, 2013).
“We conclude, however, that the officers did not exceed the permissible scope of the traffic stop by briefly questioning Adamson to determine whether he was in compliance with the licensing restriction that required that he have an ignition interlock device installed in his vehicle and, therefore, did not need reasonable suspicion of additional criminal activity to conduct such an inquiry.” State v. Adamson, 2013 UT App 22, 2013 Utah App. LEXIS 18 (January 25, 2013).*
The victim of a crime is entitled to more credibility than an anonymous informant or a CI. United States v. Martin, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185175 (D. Minn. December 14, 2012).*
↧
