VI: Alleged “plain view” of drugs inadequate without a showing that it was “immediately apparent” drugs were there

Defendant had an accident and was being detained because he appeared under the influence. His vehicle was searched, and a plastic bag inside a plastic bag was seen. The prosecution having produced no evidence that the officer had reason to suspect that the bag contained drugs, the plain view doctrine’s “immediately apparent” prong wasn’t satisfied. People v. Santana, 2014 V.I. LEXIS 40 (V.I. Super. July 8, 2014).

Defendant’s motion to suppress could have been denied just because it “is brief, generic, and devoid of factual or legal argument specifically targeting or individually addressing any of the five search warrants at issue.” On the merits, there is probable cause for each of them. United States v. Myers, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94449 (D. Minn. June 24, 2014).

Straddling the centerline making a left turn at 3 am for one second wasn’t a violation of the city lane change ordinance, so the stop was without reasonable suspicion. State v. Maxwell, 2014-Ohio-3062, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 3001 (2d Dist. July 11, 2014).*

This entry was posted in Motion to suppress, Plain view, feel, smell, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.