Cal.2d: Two parole searches in two days was not shown to be harassing; the officer had reason

Defendant was stopped and parole searched twice in 24 hours by the same police officer. Defendant did not show that the search was harassing because the officer had reason to believe defendant was in possession when he was seen the second time. People v. Sardinas, 170 Cal. App. 4th 488, 87 Cal. Rptr. 3d 896 (2d Dist. 2009):

In this case, the trial court heard the testimony of Officer Samuels at the hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress and concluded that the December 21 search in the convenience store parking lot was conducted for a legitimate law enforcement purpose and not to harass. There is substantial evidence in the record to support that conclusion. The search in question was conducted directly across the street from an apartment complex known to Officer Samuels as a location where drug trafficking occurred. Officer Samuels also knew defendant was on parole for a drug possession conviction and had observed defendant associating with known drug addicts in the past. According to the trial court, there was no evidence that Officer Samuels harbored any animus toward defendant, and there was evidence that part of Officer Samuels’s job was to know the identities of parolees in the City and to patrol areas known for drug trafficking. Therefore, the evidence presented at the hearing on the motion to suppress supported a reasonable inference that Officer Samuels was acting with a legitimate law enforcement purpose when he searched defendant on December 21.

Defendant focuses on the traffic stop the night before the search in question, the ensuing searches of defendant’s person, van, and house, and the results of those searches that produced nothing illegal or suspicious. According to defendant, based on those searches, there was no legitimate reason to stop and search defendant less than 24 hours later as he walked through a convenience store parking lot. The gist of defendant’s argument is that the temporal proximity between the December 20 and 21 searches, when combined with Officer Samuels’s prior six or seven contacts with defendant, belies any legitimate purpose for the search on December 21 and compels the conclusion that the search was harassing. We disagree.

Dangling pine tree air freshener hanging from rear view mirror justified a traffic stop based on the officer’s testimony it blocked view out windshield. United States v. McKissic, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4019 (W.D. Mich. January 21, 2009).*

Defendant’s live-in girlfriend consented to a search of her premises, so defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging the search under Strickland. United States v. Moses, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4083 (E.D. Wis. January 9, 2009).*

Defendant’s “generalized objection in the introductory sentences of his objection [to USMJ’s R&R] … is insufficient to prevent waiver.” “Regardless of waiver, Salahuddin would not prevail on his motion for suppression of physical evidence because the government met its burden of proving consent to the search. The court finds that Rose consented to a search of the apartment. Therefore, the physical evidence uncovered during the search may be properly admitted into evidence.” United States v. Salahuddin, 607 F. Supp. 2d 930 (E.D. Wis. 2009).*