CA9: Untimely post-trial motion to suppress not even considered on appeal

“Ellis also argues that the police officers’ search of his rental car resulted from an unconstitutionally prolonged traffic stop and was unsupported by probable cause. He pressed this claim in a post-trial motion that was untimely under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3)(C) and failed to make an argument for good cause, as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(c)(3). Thus, we decline to review this claim.” United States v. Ellis, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 18020 (9th Cir. July 21, 2025).*

There was reasonable suspicion to continue the stop. “The suspicion here arises from the combination of the travel plans, the story, and the time spent in Atalanta. Detective Anderson was rightfully skeptical that a father would fly to help his adult son move ‘a couple of boxes,’ stay for a few hours, and then drive back through the night. The reason Crayton gave for driving back was that his son was supposed to come back with them. To Detective Anderson, that did not adequately explain away his suspicions. It does not do so for the Court, either.” United States v. Crayton, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138102 (N.D. Ind. July 18, 2025).*

The government showed nexus in the warrant affidavit for drugs in defendant’s house. United States v. Swain, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138413 (N.D. Ohio July 21, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Nexus, Reasonable suspicion, Waiver. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.