LA4: Lack of apt no. in SW wasn’t inspecific where officers were directed to his door

The search warrant for defendant’s apartment didn’t have the apartment number, but the warrant was specific and directed the officers to his door. That was constitutionally adequate. State v. Gilmartin, 2020 La. App. LEXIS 118 (La. App. 4 Cir. Jan. 15, 2020).

Defendant’s claim the officer wasn’t credible on smelling marijuana during the stop is rejected. [His arguments don’t really follow the conclusion he seeks.] United States v. Muhammad, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225095 (D. Minn. Dec. 20, 2019),* adopted, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7726 (D. Minn. Jan. 16, 2020).*

Defendant’s headlight violation, corrected after the officer saw him, was still a constitutional justification for the stop. The fact it may have been subjectively a pretext doesn’t matter. United States v. Swain, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9062 (D. Alaska Jan. 17, 2020).*

This entry was posted in Particularity, Pretext, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.