W.D.Ky.: Gant likely made SI as to one defendant invalid, but not as to the other defendant, and that was enough for both

Where two people were in the car and the search incident as to one was a close case under Gant, it wasn’t as to the other defendant, so that person’s search incident supported finding the evidence as to both. United States v. Stone, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69396 (W.D. Ky. August 7, 2009).

Defendant’s failure to controvert the police version of a search in his papers does not get him an evidentiary hearing. United States v. Kennedy, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69665 (D. Conn. August 10, 2009)*:

“[A]n evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress ordinarily is required if the moving papers are sufficiently definite, specific, detailed, and nonconjectural to enable the court to conclude that contested issues of fact … are in question.” United States v. Watson, 404 F.3d 163, 167 (2d Cir. 2005). “To sufficiently raise an issue of fact, the defendant, in moving for a suppression hearing, must include an affidavit of someone alleging personal knowledge of the relevant fact, and that fact must put the issue of the legality of the warrantless stop into contention.” United States v. Marquez, 367 F. Supp. 2d 600, 603 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). In the present case, the defendant has not filed an affidavit or otherwise called into question the facts in the police reports and evidence cited by the Government. Therefore, no hearing is necessary, and the Court will proceed to consider the defendant’s legal arguments in support of his motion to suppress.

Call for a drug dog that arrived in five minutes in a stop that was already reasonably short was reasonable. United States v. Chrestman, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69622 (E.D. Mo. July 23, 2009).*

Police search after a private search that did not expand the private search was valid. United States v. Pontefract, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69596 (W.D. La. June 18, 2009), amended 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70047 (W.D. La. July 9, 2009).*

Kansas law requires reasonable suspicion for a parole search, and defendant’s nervousness was not enough. Defendant consented, however. United States v. Johnson, 649 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (D. Kan. 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.