“In his amended motion for leave, counsel admits that he received the discovery in this matter from the Government on or about October 19, 2017, but states that he was not ‘in a position to effectively review’ such materials until mid-December due to other professional obligations. Counsel’s busy schedule, however, does not constitute good cause for failing to seek an extension of the pretrial motions deadline at an earlier time. See Chavez, 902 F.2d at 263 (recognizing that courts of appeals generally deny relief from the denial of an untimely motion to suppress where such motion was filed after the court-imposed deadline and the defendant proffers only a ‘dubious excuse’). Having failed to demonstrate good cause for the failure to file a timely suppression motion, the Defendant’s motion for leave must be denied.” United States v. Memsen, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210685 (W.D. N.C. Dec. 22, 2017).
“Contrary to Wardle’s contention he drove erratically by passing out of his lane of traffic from the left lane into the right lane, and the dash cam demonstrated that weather conditions did not prohibit him from staying in his lane. There was an odor of alcohol emanating from him and the vehicle. He attempted to mask the odor of alcohol with cigarette smoke, had his license out of the window and avoided eye contact with the officer to avoid detection. Further, his refusal to take the field sobriety tests can be factored into the probable-cause analysis. … Thus, there was ample evidence to support Wardle’s arrest for OVI.” State v. Wardle, 2017-Ohio-9238, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 5674 (7th Dist. Dec. 11, 2017).*