D.Me.: SW could say “contraband” drugs and still be particular

The affidavit for the search warrant for defendant’s vehicle was based on probable cause. The fact the warrant sought “contraband” drugs did not make it lack particularity. United States v. Jenkins, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98360 (D. Me. August 27, 2010):

I find no substantial basis to conclude that the Cejka affidavit failed to convey probable cause to search the defendant’s minivan. The defendant errs in arguing that Cejka was required to supply probable cause to believe that a specific type of contraband was present in the minivan. Cejka need only have supplied probable cause to believe that contraband was present there. See, e.g., United States v. Martinez-Cortes, 566 F.3d 767, 771 (8th Cir. 2009) (when occupants of vehicle did not promptly comply with orders to put the vehicle in park and show their hands, and defendant moved his arms as if to hide something between his leg and the car’s console, officers had probable cause to believe that criminal activity was afoot and were justified in searching those areas of the vehicle where weapons or contraband might be hidden).

The record shows that the consent in this case was voluntary and valid. United States v. Ziga, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98097 (W.D. La. August 27, 2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.