W.D.N.C.: Timely motion to suppress was enough to have to continue trial date over def’s objection

Defendant filed a motion to suppress but didn’t want the trial delayed. Based on the time for the government to respond and the USMJ to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial would have to be continued over defendant’s objection. United States v. Gilmore, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200734 (W.D. N.C. Dec. 6, 2017).*

The officer’s actions were all within the scope of a normal traffic stop. The officer also checked into defendant’s other drug arrests. “To the extent that Mr. Garcia-Vasquez is claiming the traffic stop was prolonged minutes longer than necessary to resolve the violation, the trooper had the consent of Mr. Garcia-Vasquez to prolong the stop.” Once consent was given, the officer looked under the SUV and noticed modifications that indicated that there likely was a false compartment. United States v. Garcia-Vasquez, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202047 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 5, 2017).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Motion to suppress, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.