U.S. v. Vargas

In prosecution on drug distribution charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress drugs seized from his truck that was parked in gated parking lot, under circumstances where: (1) defendant sold three kilograms of cocaine to buyer at defendant’s parked truck; (2) police in Ohio apprehended buyer who informed police that defendant had sold him said drugs on prior day; (3) Ohio police informed Illinois police about transaction, and Ill. police immediately went to parking lot and entered lot when another individual drove into lot; (4) Ill. police confirmed identity of defendant’s truck and brought dog into lot to conduct sniff test; and (5) after dog alerted to presence of drugs in defendant’s truck, police broke window and found eight more kilograms of cocaine in defendant’s truck. Defendant could not assert any 4^th Amendment violation, where defendant did not own parking lot, did not have assigned parking space and could not keep third parties from entering lot. Moreover, only person who could assert 4^th Amendment violation was lot owner. Also, Dist. Ct. did not err in precluding defendant from calling prosecution’s expert witness, where defendant failed to comply with Rule 16(b)(1)(C) by giving prosecution prior written summary of expert’s proposed testimony. Fact that govt. had previously disclosed expert and provided description of his expected testimony did not require different result.