Officers had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant in a car that matched one reported in a burglary near the time of the burglary speeding away from the area of the burglary. State v. Rogers, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 124 (February 13, 2013).*

Defendant was stopped for speeding, and the odor of marijuana coming from his car was strong, and that gave probable cause to search it. State v. Bashir, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 136 (February 14, 2013).*

Where defendant would lose on the nexus argument he raised in an ineffectiveness claim, his lawyer couldn’t be ineffective. Kratochvil v. State, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 142 (February 15, 2013).*

Despite procedural bars to raising attorney ineffectiveness in defendant’s state court proceeding for failure to raise issues in state court, defendant’s arrest was lawful, so defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging it. The certificate of appealability is denied. Hyatt v. Rudek, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3232 (10th Cir. February 15, 2013).*

Defendant was properly stopped because his LPN was blocked by snow, and it turned out he was under the influence. State v. Haldane, 2013 MT 32, 2013 Mont. LEXIS 33 (February 12, 2013).*

The mere presence of an alleged live grenade, without more, did not justify exigency for a police entry into defendant’s house. In fact, it turned out that the grenade was last seen by defendant’s wife, the reporter to them, two years earlier, although the police didn't know that at the time. See United States v. Bonitz, 826 F.2d 954, 957 (10th Cir. 1987) (concluding no exigency existed where officers found cans of gun powder because "[s]tanding undisturbed, cans of gun powder are inert"). United States v. Yengel, 711 F.3d 392 (4th Cir. 2013):

=> Read more!

Defendant contended that he was not a suspect in a crime, but a witness, therefore a search warrant could not issue for his place. To the contrary, a person can be innocent of crime but have evidence subject to a search warrant (Zurcher). United States v. Kelly, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20949 (D. Ariz. February 14, 2013).*

While defendant did not testify, the circumstances showed his reasonable expectation of privacy in the two containers searched. Keeping the containers closed and locked manifested his expectation of privacy. United States v. Gardner, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20527 (E.D. N.C. January 30, 2013).*

The search of defendant’s car was with probable cause. Officers observed a hand-to-hand transaction with defendant standing next to the car, and he drove off and stopped at a business. They followed and talked to defendant, and the odor of marijuana was coming from the car. United States v. Farmer, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20933 (E.D. Mo. January 2, 2013).*

While this is a close case, the anonymous CI provided his basis of knowledge to the officer, and that supported credibility for the stop based on reasonable suspicion. United States v. Aviles-Vega, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20220 (D. P.R. January 8, 2013).*

Search warrant for drugs and records of a business included defendant’s attache case that was there when the warrant arrived. The warrant was conceded to be otherwise valid. United States v. Votrobek, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185962 (N.D. Ga. June 25, 2012).*

Defendant’s stop on a motorcycle was for speeding. A drug dog alerted on the saddlebag, and that was probable cause. United States v. Gunnell, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185931 (W.D. Mo. December 17, 2012).*

The prosecution put on evidence of the drug dog’s training and experience. “In short, it is difficult to contemplate a more complete and compelling record that could be before the court regarding this drug dog's abilities.” The extra time of conversation with the defendant was de minimus. United States v. Givens, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18912 (E.D. Va. February 12, 2013).*

The entry into the house was with the consent of defendant’s parents. The search of his room was with his consent. A shotgun was in plain view. United States v. Carter, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186034 (D. Me. November 30, 2012).*

When the registered owner of a vehicle is shown to have a suspended DL, a stop of the vehicle is justified if the officer cannot tell that the operator is a different person (such as different gender, much different age). United States v. Barber, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19596 (N.D. Iowa January 25, 2013).*

Because the defendant’s truck was not on the property when the warrant for the property was issued, it wasn’t subject to the warrant. However, the truck was left unlocked and with the key in the ignition, and the court finds that shows a lack of a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the truck. United States v. Conrad, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19145 (W.D. Va. February 13, 2013).*

Defendant kept drugs in a camper on another’s property. He agrees he doesn’t have standing in the curtilage there, and he argues just in the camper, a “place of business.” There was no Fourth Amendment protection from surveillance of the camper. There was probable cause for the search in the two affidavits. A GPS device had also been placed with a warrant. United States v. Belisle, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17805 (D. Me. February 11, 2013).*

The warrant for the cell phone was properly issued. United States v. Satchell, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19725 (E.D. Mo. February 14, 2013).*

Pro se defendant does not argue the application of the good faith exception in the USMJ R&R, and the motion to suppress is denied. United States v. Hunter, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19751 (D. Minn. February 14, 2013).*

Defendant’s ineffective assistance claim that defense counsel did not present some important evidence at the hearing on the motion to suppress is denied. That which wasn’t presented wouldn’t change the outcome. United States v. Harris, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19672 (W.D. Pa. February 14, 2013).*