E.D.Mich.: “Electronic data” in a SW permitted seizure of a computer

“Electronic data” in a search warrant permitted seizure of computers, although a second search warrant was required to get into them. United States v. Horn, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82490 (E.D. Mich. September 10, 2009).*

The video of defendant’s driving showed reason for his stop, and the marijuana in the back seat was in plain view. United States v. Brooks, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82449 (M.D. Ala. August 13, 2009).*

Officers’ testimony contradicted their reports, and the court lost confidence in their credibility as witnesses on the cause for the stop and the search after it, so the motion to suppress was granted. United States v. Coppin, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82910 (N.D. Tex. September 11, 2009):

The court concludes that there are multiple inconsistencies between the officers’ stories, the arrest reports, and Cottingham’s testimony. These inconsistencies relate directly to the most important issues regarding the traffic stop: the reasonableness of the stop and credibility. The testimony was stated in such a way to justify or enhance the reason for the initial traffic stop. Regardless of the reasons for the multiple inconsistencies — that is, whether they are the result of poor report writing, lapse of memory because of passage of time, or misrepresentations — credibility is substantially undermined. The court has serious doubts that the officers had a reasonable suspicion that the occupants of the Town Car were involved in criminal activity at the time of the stop. These inconsistencies undermine the officers’ credibility to a degree that the court concludes that the government has not met its burden in showing that there was a reasonable basis for the traffic stop at its inception. As the stop was not justified, the court need not reach the parties’ arguments about whether Defendant had a privacy right in the car or whether he has standing to challenge the search. Accordingly, the court concludes that the evidence found during that traffic stop must be suppressed. The court grants Coppin’s Motion to Suppress Evidence and hereby suppresses the evidence obtained by the Dallas Police Department during the traffic stop on June 29, 2008.

Three vehicles showed up together on a lonely border road, and the officer stopped them. On the totality, there was reasonable suspicion for the stop and detention for smuggling at the border under Arvizu. The fact the stop was planned does not make it unreasonable. United States v. Seibel, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82854 (D. Ariz. September 10, 2009):

Johnson’s supposed intent when he first began to approach Seibel’s vehicle does not provide a basis to conclude that Johnson manufactured the specific, articulable facts that, at the moment of seizure, support a finding of reasonable suspicion. Similarly, while the Court considers that Johnson may have been less than thorough in investigating all three vehicles, it does not change the conclusion that, at the moment of seizure, there was reasonable suspicion for Johnson to stop Seibel’s vehicle.