drugs, told him to “obtain his own PC, probable cause, for a traffic stop,” and updated him on Lee’s whereabouts. R. 33 at 3-4. All of that information was based on the illegal search. Without the GPS tracking data, the DEA agents would not have known that Lee traveled to Chicago (his source for drugs), that he was returning to Kentucky along 1-75, or his exact position. As a result, Judge Ingram reasoned that the causal connection between the illegal search and the traffic stop remained intact. See R. 33 at 17. Judge Ingram’s conclusion is also supported by the Sixth Circuit’s binding decision in United States v. Gross, 662 F.3d 393, 405 (6th Cir.2011). In that case, a police officer made an illegal stop of an individual in a high-crime neighborhood. Id. at 396. In (6th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). The dog search and confession are not,
holding that even if an officers stop of a defendant who was on foot was unlawful the search of a parked car was justified by a different officer observing a gun magazine in plain view in the car holding investigative stop based on officers observation of defendant apparently asleep in legally parked car was improper holding that the defendant abandoned the car he was driving thus relinquishing any reasonable expectation of privacy to the contents of the car when he jumped out of the stillmoving car and fled on foot during a high speed chase with police holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search recognizing that officers making initial contact with driver of car who was lawfully parked late at night in a park was an appropriate welfare check where officer testified he was concerned because towels were obscuring the car windows