U.S. v. Ochoa-Lopez

In prosecution on drug charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence recovered during warrantless search following traffic stop of defendant’s vehicle. Police had probable cause to conduct warrantless search of defendant’s vehicle, where: (1) police had drug dealer under constant surveillance on day of drug transaction; (2) police were aware that drug supplier, who had leg injury, was scheduled to arrive at drug dealer’s house, along with another individual; (3) police observed what turned out to be defendant’s vehicle arrive at dealer’s house and stay for additional ten to fifteen minutes; (4) police followed defendant’s vehicle and stopped said vehicle after observing two driving violations; (5) police observed defendant in driver’s seat and passenger having leg injury that required use of assistive device; (6) police held belief that defendant’s explanation that he was transporting vehicle on behalf of third-party was untrue; and (7) above facts established fair probability that vehicle contained contraband or evidence of crime. Ct. rejected defendant’s contention that his mere presence around suspected illegal activity was insufficient to establish probable cause to search vehicle, where police had additional facts to support finding of probable cause.