N.D.W.Va.: SI of defendant’s car valid under Gant even though defendant was put in police car; PC existed, and he had to be put in police car because of his own actions

Search of defendant’s car was valid as a search incident because the officer had probable cause to arrest defendant and believe that there was stolen property in the car. Defendant at first consented to the search if he could watch, but he became obnoxious and was put in the police car and withdrew his consent unless he could watch. Even though he was in the police car at the time, it was still valid under Gant. United States v. Williams, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66706 (N.D. W.Va. July 31, 2009).*

Motion to reopen suppression hearing would have been denied, so defense counsel was not ineffective. Brown v. United States, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66887 (D. Me. June 8, 2009):

I am confident that had counsel notified the court and/or moved to reopen the suppression hearing based on the information gleaned from the private investigator he would have been firmly rebuffed; quibbling with the court about the credibility of a witness at the suppression hearing with less than one month to go until trial would not have been a successful tactic. “Counsel is not required to waste the court’s time with futile or frivolous motions.” United States v. Wright 573 F.2d 681, 684 (1st Cir. 1978); see also United State v. Hart, 933 F.2d 80, 83 (1st Cir. 1991) (“[S]everal First Circuit cases have upheld counsel’s right to ignore frivolous claims pressed by clients.”).

Information from an informant about current activity coupled with older information showed probable cause and made the older information not stale. United States v. Carrillo, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66860 (W.D. Mo. July 10, 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.