CA6: Nexus shown to defendant’s car for evidence of bank robbery

Nexus was shown to defendant’s car for a search warrant for proceeds and evidence of a bank robbery. There was probable cause as to defendant, and the car he left in his later escape from the police was seized. United States v. Sneed, 385 Fed. Appx. 551 (6th Cir. 2010):

[T]his case presents a close call as to whether Lauber’s affidavit established a nexus between Sneed’s Cadillac and evidence of the bank robbery. Yet reading the affidavit as a whole, and based on the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that it set forth sufficient facts to meet the nexus requirement. See Lapsins, 570 F.3d at 763-64 (stating the standard for evaluating whether probable cause exists). Sneed does not dispute that the information contained in Lauber’s affidavit clearly established probable cause to believe that Sneed was connected with the Sky Bank robbery. A reading of the affidavit in its entirety also supports an inference that Sneed would have kept instrumentalities from the robbery in his Cadillac. See Gunter, 551 F.3d at 481 (stating that an inference can be drawn that a suspect will keep criminal instrumentalities in his place of residence).

Defendant’s continued stop was based on reasonable suspicion, and a wait of up to 20 minutes for a drug dog to arrive was not unreasonable. United States v. Anderson, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72039 (W.D. Mich. July 19, 2010).*

Same, 16 minutes. United States v. Curry, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72074 (D. Md. July 16, 2010).*

In what was a “a close case,” officers came to a house with a door open and nobody answering their knocks and they went inside and found defendant asleep near drugs. It was reasonable to conclude that they overdosed, and this was a legitimate community caretaker function. State v. Pinkard, 2010 WI 81, 327 Wis. 2d 346, 785 N.W.2d 592 (2010).*