AL: Federal adoption of a forfeiture deprives the state court of jurisdiction to order return of property

Federal adoption of a forfeiture deprives the state court of jurisdiction to order return of property. Gray v. City of Opelika, 2015 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 254 (Nov. 6, 2015).

A traffic offense justified this stop, then “the smell of marijuana alone by a person qualified to recognize the odor is sufficient to provide probable cause for a warrantless search of the vehicle.” State v. Tate, 2015-Ohio-4496, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 4461 (8th Dist. Oct. 29, 2015).*

The two CIs here were corroborated by independent evidence and each other so there was probable cause. Nexus is shown by the defendant being picked up at his house and having meth on him for the CI. Three month old information that another CI was going to defendant’s house to get meth was timely by the other CI seeing defendant counting a large amount of cash in the house the day before the warrant issued. United States v. Flemino, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149633 (D.Minn. Sept. 16, 2015), adopted 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149125 (D. Minn. Nov. 3, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Informant hearsay, Plain view, feel, smell, Rule 41(g) / Return of property. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.