CA8: Gant inapplicable where there is PC for the search

As the officer approached defendant’s vehicle during a traffic stop, he could smell burnt marijuana. This was probable cause for a search of the car, and Gant was inapplicable. United States v. Davis, 569 F.3d 813 (8th Cir. 2009).*

In a § 2255 case, defendant’s insistence that trial and appellate defense counsel should have made a separate claim against seizure of the evidence was rejected. “Retaining documents tending to demonstrate Shelton’s guilt was not an unreasonable seizure by the government.” Defense counsel could not be ineffective. Also, the prior appeal apparently decided this question. United States v. Shelton, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14181 (5th Cir. June 30, 2009),* direct appeal: United States v. Shelton, 337 F.3d 529 (5th Cir. 2003) (FYI, I was appellate counsel alleged to be ineffective.)

Parole search of defendant’s unauthorized residence was permitted on reasonable suspicion. United States v. Crutchfield, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55760 (E.D. Pa. June 29, 2009).*

Police came to an apartment building to execute a search warrant, and they concluded that the number of house violations was substantial, and they called the housing code enforcers and they decided that the building should be condemned. They went from apartment to apartment to tell people to leave and look for stragglers. Defendant consented to the entry into his apartment that produced crack and his 262 month sentence. United States v. McGraw, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14393 (7th Cir. July 2, 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.