United States v. Mariano Murillo

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an officer must “articulate suspicious factors that are particularized and objective” in order to expand questioning beyond his or her justification for the initiation of contact
• holding that “unknowing courier” testimony was relevant and admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 3 704
• holding that five factors — extreme nervousness, lack of eye contact only when asked about drug activity, inability to explain travel plans, elevated heart rate, and evidence of long road trip in a rental car— were sufficient to justify broadening the scope of questioning
• holding that five factors — extreme nervousness, lack of eye contact only when asked about drug activity, inability to explain travel plans, elevated heart rate, and evidence of long road trip in a rental car — were sufficient to justify broadening the scope of questioning
• stating that expert opinion testimony of officer regarding modus operandi was admissible where officer did not offer “any ‘explicit opinion’ of defendant’s state of mind or knowledge of his transportation of drugs”
• upholding the admission of expert testimony that drug traffickers do not routinely entrust large quantities of drugs to unknowing couriers to attack defendant’s unknowing courier defense

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).