D.Idaho: Even if smell of MJ only justifies search of passenger compartment, finding nothing extends it to trunk

Defendant argues that the smell of marijuana during a traffic stop only permitted a search of the passenger compartment of his vehicle. When the officer didn’t find any marijuana there, it was justified to search the trunk. United States v. Sheh, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184631 (D. Idaho Oct. 2, 2020).

The traffic stop was not unreasonably extended where the drug dog was within sight of defendant’s stop and was called in when he refused consent. United States v. Paholsky, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184789 (S.D. W.Va. Oct. 6, 2020).

The defense presented no declaration with any offer of proof that disputed the facts of the government’s version of the search. “It appears that, despite offering no evidence or proffer of evidence, defendant nonetheless wishes to test the officers’ police reports and declarations by cross-examination. This is an insufficient basis upon which to request for an evidentiary hearing.” The encounter was brief and was not unreasonably extended. United States v. Zavala-Reyes, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184601 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2020).

This entry was posted in Motion to suppress, Reasonableness, Scope of search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.