The defendant filed a two page motion to suppress and memorandum in support that relied on the presumption of unreasonableness of a warrantless search, but that did not compel that there be a hearing. The cryptic motion did not justify a hearing, and the motion to suppress was denied. United States v. Thompson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42917 (N.D. Ill. June 12, 2007):
The tacit premise of Mr. Thompson’s motion is that an evidentiary hearing is required whenever a warrantless search is conducted. No case supports that proposition. Where a court has before it all the material facts, and they are not disputed, a hearing is not necessary. United States v. Berkowitz, 927 F.2d 1376, 1385 (7th Cir. 1991). An evidentiary hearing is only required when the defendant alleges specific, definite, detailed, and non-conjectural facts, which, if proven, would justify the relief sought. United States v. Woods, 995 F.2d 713, 715 (7th Cir. 1993); United States v. Randale, 966 F.2d 1209, 1212 (7th Cir. 1992).
These fundamental principles were recently reaffirmed by the Seventh Circuit:
“Evidentiary hearings are not required as a matter of course; a district court need conduct a hearing only when the allegations and moving papers are sufficiently definite, specific, non-conjectural and detailed enough to conclude that a substantial claim is presented and that there are disputed issues of material facts which will affect the outcome of the motion. United States v. Villegas, 388 F.3d 317, 324 (7th Cir. 2004); see also Juarez, 454 F.3d at 720; United States v. Martin, 422 F.3d 597, 602-03 (7th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 74 U.S.L.W. 3424 (Jan. 23, 2006) (No. 05-8234). We have emphasized the necessity of materiality in any factual disputes that are presented to the district court as a predicate for an evidentiary hearing. Villegas, 388 F.3d at 324; Juarez, 454 F.3d at 720; United States v. Berkowitz, 927 F.2d 1376, 1385 (7th Cir. 1991).
“Mr. McGaughy’s briefing and argument on the motion to suppress do not identify any specific ‘material factual dispute’ requiring resolution through an evidentiary hearing. In the district court, Mr. McGaughy did claim the information from Doe was up to two weeks old and therefore stale, and, on reply, added his claims that personal bias motivated the complaining officer in seeking the warrant. Mr. McGaughy did not make any serious effort to articulate what facts had to be adduced at an evidentiary hearing to inform the court’s analysis; furthermore, Mr. McGaughy did not articulate in what manner the district court’s ultimate determination of probable cause would have been different if his version of the facts were accepted. See Juarez, 454 F.3d at 720.”
United States v. McGaughy, __ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 1374758, *3-4 (7th Cir. 2007). See also Bradley v. United States, 2007 WL 956901 at *2 (7th Cir. 2007)(“before an evidentiary hearing will be granted, the appellant must provide a detailed and specific affidavit”).
The USMJ’s credibility determinations show that the search was justified. There was nothing inherently incredible or implausible about the testimony for an appeals court to reverse. United States v. Biggs, 491 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2007).*
Defendant was being arrested on an unrelated warrant, and he gave the keys to the officer before being taken in. The vehicle was inventoried before towing. The search was not challenged in the District Court, and, on plain error review, the search was valid on the policy. United States v. Carlton, 237 Fed. Appx. 530 (11th Cir. 2007)* (unpublished).
Warrant did not discuss weapons, but the warrant was valid, and weapons in plain view could be seized. United States v. Jarvis, 237 Fed. Appx. 636 (2d Cir. 2007)* (unpublished).
The standard of review for a consensual encounter is not different than a traffic stop. United States v. Torres, 237 Fed. Appx. 337 (10th Cir. 2007)* (unpublished).
Defendant’s disclaiming ownership of a car in an apartment complex denied him standing to challenge the search of the vehicle, even though the keys were found on him. United States v. Russell, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42744 (W.D. Mich. June 13, 2007).*
