Defendant was stopped at a DL checkpoint, and he did not have one and appeared really nervous. He consented to a search of his person producing cocaine, and that led to a “limited protective search” of his car, which would have been valid under the automobile exception. United States v. Nixon, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 20414 (4th Cir. October 1, 2010) (unpublished).*
The stop of defendant’s vehicle was valid because the police recognized the passenger and had a warrant for him. Defendant’s minor questioning while waiting for the paperwork to be verified led to an admission that the car was going to a drug deal, and that supported a search. United States v. Savath, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 20391 (9th Cir. October 1, 2010) (unpublished).*
The question of exigent circumstances for the police entry into defendant’s home was irrelevant because nothing of any consequence was found and nothing from that entry was used at trial. The fact is was a potentially dangerous situation was essentially moot and abstract. United States v. Escobedo, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 20432 (7th Cir. October 4, 2010) (unpublished).*
"