CA3: Possible forfeiture was basis for search of car

Defendant’s vehicle seizure was with probable cause to believe that it was being used to transport drugs, so it was valid as vehicle search or in aid of forfeiture for transporting drugs. United States v. Hall, 354 Fed. Appx. 725 (3d Cir. 2009) (unpublished)* (We don’t see many cases where the basis for the seizure is in aid of forfeiture. That almost always is a post hoc determination.)

Defendant’s stop was valid under Terry for furtive behavior–driving from the scene of a reported crime with his lights off. United States v. Nadal, 354 Fed. Appx. 729 (3d Cir. 2009) (unpublished).*

During a traffic stop, defendant was ordered out of the car, and a gun was seen in plain view. The officer’s intent to search was not binding, so Gant had no application. The fact that defendant was handcuffed in a police car did not prevent entry into the car for the gun in plain view. United States v. Rumley, 588 F.3d 202 (4th Cir. 2009).*

Moreover, Deputy Wagner’s intent to search the truck does not transform his lawful request of Ross into the “first step” of an improper search. Rather, Deputy Wagner’s request was a “discrete” act that brought the pistol into plain view. Cf. United States v. Moses, 540 F.3d 263, 272 (4th Cir. 2008) (concluding that separate acts of lawfully inserting a key in a lock and unlawfully entering a house without a warrant, while part of a “continuous activity,” constituted discrete acts yielding discrete information, “because the use of the key in the lock need not have led to entry of the residence at all”).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.