D.Neb.: The gov’t put def on notice standing was an issue, and def didn’t respond with proof; no standing

The government argued no standing. “Despite being on notice that standing was an issue, Defendant did not introduce evidence at the suppression hearing to establish his relationship to the property searched in this case.” Going to the merits anyway, defendant got out of his pickup truck when he was stopped, and there was a baggie of meth protruding from his pocket. It’s evidentiary value was immediately apparent to the officer. United States v. Morales, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60649 (D. Neb. Apr. 10, 2018).

There was enough connection between defendant and a drug trafficking operation to be probable cause to search defendant’s house. “[T]he Affidavit does not solely rest on the agent’s assertion that evidence of Bennett’s drug dealing activity is based on the agent’s knowledge from training and experience.” Even so, the good faith exception applies, and the search is still valid. United States v. Bennett, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60504 (S.D. Ind. Apr. 10, 2018).*

This entry was posted in Burden of proof, Plain view, feel, smell, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.