Officers have a right to rely on NCIC information about priors, and the fact it later turned out to be inaccurate did not deprive it of being probable cause at the time of the stop. State v. Flores, 392 S.W.3d 229 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 2012).

A passenger producing a “blunt” is probable cause that there is other contraband in the vehicle. State v. Mitchell, 2012 N.C. App. LEXIS 1374 (December 4, 2012).*

The totality of circumstances provided the police with reasonable suspicion that defendant had drugs in his vehicle because of good information about an earlier meth buy. United States v. Valencia, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173269 (W.D. Ky. September 14, 2012).*

The search warrant for defendant’s house was issued without probable cause. The fact somebody worked in a medical marijuana operation in a state recognizing it is hardly indicative of criminality at his home. When undercover officers tried to buy from the dispensary, they were turned down because their “recommendations” could not be verified. United States v. Franklin, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172808 (E.D. Cal. December 4, 2012).

The affidavit for search warrant was not based on stale information. While part of it was years old, it contained current information which showed it to be an ongoing drug operation. State v. Thomas, 2012 Ohio 5577, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 4855 (3d Dist. December 3, 2012).*

The search of defendant’s house was not incident to the arrest warrant; it was based on defendant’s parole agreement. United States v. Johnson, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172163 (N.D. Ga. April 24, 2012).*

A motion to suppress the Intoxilyzer 8000 test result for lack of scientific basis was not proper; it should have been a motion in limine. State v. Miller, 2012 Ohio 5585, 983 N.E.2d 837 (11th Dist. 2012):

[*P14] The purpose and effect of a motion to suppress and a motion in limine are distinct. A "motion to suppress" is defined as a "[d]evice used to eliminate from the trial of a criminal case evidence which has been secured illegally, generally in violation of the Fourth Amendment (search and seizure), the Fifth Amendment (privilege against self incrimination), or the Sixth Amendment (right to assistance of counsel, right of confrontation etc.), of U.S. Constitution." Black's Law Dictionary (6 Ed. 1990) 1014. Thus, a motion to suppress is the proper vehicle for raising constitutional challenges based on the exclusionary rule first enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Weeks v. United States (1914), 232 U.S. 383, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652, T.D. 1964, and made applicable to the states in Mapp v. Ohio (1961), 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, 86 Ohio Law Abs. 513. Further, this court has held that the exclusionary rule will not ordinarily be applied to suppress evidence which is the product of police conduct that violates a statute but falls short of a constitutional violation, unless specifically required by the legislature. Kettering v. Hollen (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 232, 235, 18 O.O.3d 435, 437, 416 N.E.2d 598, 600. An important characteristic of a motion to suppress is that finality attaches so that the ruling of the court at the suppression hearing prevails at trial and is, therefore, automatically appealable by the state. R.C. 2945.67(A); [former] Crim.R. 12(J); see, also, State v. Davidson (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 132, 17 OBR 277, 477 N.E.2d 1141.

Under the totality of circumstances, “[o]fficers in conducting such an investigation are fully entitled to rely upon their professional experience and specialized training to draw inferences from and make deductions about the cumulative information available to them, information that might well seem entirely innocuous to the untrained eye.” United States v. Valencia, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173269 (W.D. Ky. September 13, 2012).*

In a combined suppression hearing and bench trial, the defense properly preserved the objection to the admission of the evidence for appeal. The search of the defendant’s person was invalid because the consent was coerced. State v. Spagnola, 295 Kan. 1098, 289 P.3d 68 (2012).*

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not raising a suppression issue that was a loser. United States v. Altamirano-Quintero, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25127 (10th Cir. December 6, 2012).*

Keeping mind that affidavits for search warrants are usually drafted in the haste of a criminal investigation, this alleged false statement was just in artful drafting. United States v. Bradley, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173827 (N.D. Ohio December 7, 2012):

Taking a commonsense approach, and keeping in mind that search warrant affidavits "are normally drafted by nonlawyers in the midst and haste of a criminal investigation," United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 108 (1965), the Court is satisfied that the affiant, Detective Susan Barker, did not intentionally misstate the facts. ... The challenged language in the affidavit may be lacking in precision, but the Court concludes that, if anything, this was a result of inartful drafting rather than an intent to deceive. The defendants have failed to prove that the police intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth misstated the facts when they included the words "present" or "met" in the warrant affidavit.