Slight inaccuracy in the color of a vehicle wanted for a “man with a gun” report did not make the stop invalid. Greater inaccuracies have survived in case law before. United States v. Atkins, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2583, 2013 FED App. 0135N (6th Cir. February 5, 2013).*

Nexus to gun in house for a search warrant was shown from the officer’s knowledge of defendant’s keeping gun in car, and the general knowledge of the utility of guns. United States v. Pando, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14602 (W.D. Okla. February 4, 2013).*

Smell of burned and raw marijuana coming from a car is probable cause to search the trunk. Jones v. State, 2013 Ga. App. LEXIS 42 (February 5, 2013).*

Defendant claimed newly discovery evidence of a possible Fourth Amendment violation after the suppression hearing was denied. Brady doesn’t require the government to disclose every shred of evidence as to a Fourth Amendment claim on the chance it will somehow develop into impeachment. United States v. Vang Lor, 706 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2013):

We agree with the Seventh Circuit's decision in Brock. A defendant is not deprived of a full and fair opportunity to litigate simply because he does not discover all potentially relevant evidence until after his suppression hearing. Under Stone, habeas corpus relief is unavailable as long as the Government afforded "an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim." Stone, 428 U.S. at 482 (emphasis added). Absent ineffective assistance of counsel or government concealment, a defendant cannot claim that the mere existence of undiscovered material evidence deprived him of an opportunity to litigate his claim. ...

Defendant says this case differs from Stone and Brock because the Government withheld the impeaching evidence. Whether or not Brady applies at the suppression stage, we can at least assume that Defendant might be deprived of a "full and fair evidentiary hearing" if the Government withholds material evidence. Cook, 997 F.2d at 1318. But nothing suggests the Government covered up evidence. The Wyoming Highway Patrol did not put Trooper Peech on paid leave until October 2007, four months after Defendant's suppression hearing. No one involved in this case, other than Peech himself, apparently knew about the false dispatch report at the time of Defendant's suppression hearing.

Defendant cites our cases indicating that "[f]or purposes of Brady, knowledge by police or investigators is imputed to the prosecution." Smith v. Sec'y of N.M. Dep't of Corr., 50 F.3d 801, 824 (10th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). But, even if this Brady authority applies, Trooper Peech's knowledge of his own false dispatch report can hardly be imputed to the Government. The Supreme Court has explained that "the individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government's behalf in the case, including the police." Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437, 115 S. Ct. 1555, 131 L. Ed. 2d 490 (1995). But Brady "does not require the prosecution to divulge every possible shred of evidence that could conceivably benefit the defendant." Smith, 50 F.3d at 823. We do not think prosecutors have a duty to investigate officers' actions in entirely unrelated cases just in case some impeaching evidence may show up. See Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 150, 92 S. Ct. 763, 31 L. Ed. 2d 104 (1972) (saying prosecutors should establish procedures "to insure communication of all relevant information on each case to every lawyer who deals with it" (emphasis added)). Nor would Trooper Peech have thought he had a duty to disclose the information at the time since it was part of an unrelated, secret DEA investigation. Of course, things might have been different if the Wyoming Highway Patrol had begun investigating Peech for possible misconduct before the suppression hearing. But nothing indicates that was the case. So even assuming the Government has a Brady-like duty to disclose all material evidence prior to a suppression hearing, that duty does not extend to discovering every tidbit of information that is, or could ripen into, impeachment evidence.

Defendant was arrested at a Mississippi casino on a warrant from Arizona for child pornography. He refused to consent to a search of his car, and the casino wanted it off their lot. The car was searched under somebody’s impoundment policy, but the impoundment policy was never offered at the hearing. The court concludes that the inventory search was never justified by the government, and reverses. The district court conflated the valid seizure off the lot with the power to inventory, and that is incorrect. United States v. Vernon, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2570 (5th Cir. February 6, 2013).

Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the apartment he rented with his girlfriend. He hid a gun outside in a common area, and he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy there. United States v. Constant, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15524 (D. Me. February 5, 2013).*