Defendant\u2019s motion for return of mounted endangered animals found in plain view during an IRS criminal division search is denied. They were found in plain view during the execution of the search warrant and their incriminating nature was immediately apparent. United States v. Brugnara, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4157 (N.D. Cal. January 7, 2014).*<\/p>\n
Defendant signed a complete consent to search as a probation condition. When the officer was at his door and defendant answered the door, there was the \u201cthe acrid, distinctive odor of a methamphetamine cook,\u201d and defendant was a known meth cook. United States v. Smith, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183417 (E.D. Tenn. November 13, 2013).*<\/p>\n
Arizona v. Gant and the Fourth Amendment do not ensure an accurate trial. They do not involve our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements essential to a fair trial, or protect the fairness of a criminal proceeding. Thus, Gant was not essential to the accuracy or fairness of a trial and, thus, was not a watershed procedural rule and did not apply retroactively to a case still pending on habeas. Garcia v. Comm’r of Corr.<\/a>, 147 Conn. App. 669, 84 A.3d 1 (2014).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading