D.Utah misapplies burden of proof on a warrantless search

D. Utah applies clearly erroneous standard to defendant’s burden of proof to show a warrantless search unjustified. “Although the support for this determination is weak, it is consistent with the guidance that the court ‘grant deference to a trained law enforcement officer’s ability to distinguish between innocent and suspicious circumstances’ and that the defendant has the burden to prove that the motion to suppress should be granted.” The stop led to retaining identification and asking questions while holding the ID that converted the stop into a seizure requiring more. Nevertheless, defendant loses for not proving stop violated the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Wright, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71665 (D. Utah August 13, 2009), citing United States v. Clarkson, 551 F.3d 1196, 1200 (10th Cir. 2009) (“‘The proponent of a motion to suppress bears the burden of proof.’ United States v. Moore, 22 F.3d 241, 243 (10th Cir. 1994)”, which actually says “Moore has not convinced us that those findings are clearly erroneous.”). [This opinion is so bad, it will never appear in the supplement or Fourth Edition.]

By filing a supplemental motion to suppress, the defendant did not intend to amend his motion to add a new theory, so SI was not an issue in this case. This inventory was valid and shown to be based on standardized procedure and limited to safekeeping and not just to search. United States v. Foots, 340 Fed. Appx. 969 (5th Cir. 2009) (unpublished).*

Fourth Amendment claim did not survive plaintiff’s death under Indiana law. Bentz v. City of Kendallville, 577 F.3d 776 (7th Cir. 2009).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.