CA10: The fact the feds were called to complete a state initiated search did not make it unreasonable

A state officer made a stop of defendant’s car and an inventory was going to be conducted. The feds were called to take over the investigation, and they did it instead. This did not make the process unreasonable. United States v. Taylor, 592 F.3d 1104 (10th Cir. 2010).*

The district court’s credibility determination was binding since “‘unless it is contrary to the laws of nature, or is so inconsistent or improbable on its face that no reasonable factfinder could accept it.’ United States v. Ramirez-Chilel, 289 F.3d 744, 749 (11th Cir. 2002).” United States v. Telcy, 362 Fed. Appx. 83 (11th Cir. 2010) (unpublished).*

Defendant’s IAC claim fails on failure to move to suppress a search because of an unsigned search warrant since it was clear that the original search warrant was signed. United States v. Askew, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4516 (W.D. Pa. January 21, 2010).*

Defendant’s IAC claim fails because, while his electronic devices were searched incident to his arrest, he plead guilty waiving the claim. [I’m a little confused by other things the court said about the IAC claim and search, but waiver was a sufficient ground to decide the issue.] Carson v. United States, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4690 (S.D. Ill. January 21, 2010).*

Defendant’s car search violated Gant, and the government argued inventory as an alternative. The record is incomplete on the inventory issue, and the court is somewhat doubtful that the SOPs of the police department were complied with, so another hearing will have to be held. The mere fact the officers did not complete a written inventory did not make it unreasonable. United States v. Westerman, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123601 (N.D. Ga. October 1, 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.