W.D.W.Va.: USMJ erroneously puts burden of proof on defendant to show automobile exception did not apply

Search of defendant’s car was justified as an automobile exception search because he did not prove there was no probable cause. “The undersigned recommends that Defendant’s Motion to Supress be DENIED because Defendant has failed to show that there was not probable cause for the warrantless search of defendant’s vehicle.” [The defendant does not have the burden of proof to show a warrantless search was illegal.] United States v. Williams, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126054 (W.D. W.Va. June 23, 2009) (USMJ R&R).

While the search of defendant’s car was unreasonable under Gant, the district court also found that defendant consented to a search of the car, and that was not clearly erroneous. United States v. Alvarez, 371 Fed. Appx. 756 (9th Cir. 2010) (unpublished).*

Strange travel plans, excessive air freshener with the overpowering smell of detergent, and excessive nervousness was reasonable suspicion during a traffic stop. United States v. Legge, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23952 (D. Utah March 15, 2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.