ID: A party doesn’t have to cite specific case law to preserve its Fourth Amendment argument if it otherwise says the right words

The state doesn’t have to cite specific case law to preserve its argument; just make the argument. Here, it was that defendant was stopped for wandering on the road and that produced no DL and that he was driving a rental car without permission of the rental company because he wasn’t an authorized driver. Even if the detention amounted to a de facto arrest, it was justified by the lack of a DL. Suppression reversed. State v. Garcia-Rodriguez, 2016 Ida. App. LEXIS 60 (June 9, 2016).

Three was probable cause to stop defendant’s car for over tinting. Defendant’s Franks violation fails when counsel admits that the information isn’t false at the suppression hearing. United States v. Pierre, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10705 (11th Cir. June 14, 2016).*

This entry was posted in Burden of proof, Franks doctrine. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.