ICE officers had probable cause to look in defendant’s wallet from his statement that he was born in Mexico and had no immigration papers. The fact that the defendant might be sent back to Mexico without being prosecuted did not nullify the probable cause. United States v. Torres-Lona, 491 F.3d 750 (8th Cir. 2007):<\/p>\n
Torres-Lona suggests that the absence of probable cause should be inferred from Cantrell’s testimony that at the time he took appellant into custody he did not believe that any charges would be brought against Torres-Lona. It was not until after questioning him further and investigating his employment history that Cantrell believed there might be grounds to prosecute him. Appellant’s argument fails to consider significant aspects of the case. First, agent Cantrell did not state that he took Torres-Lona into custody believing that no offense had been committed, but rather that no prosecutable offense had been committed<\/em>. At that time he anticipated that Torres-Lona would be processed administratively for deportation as a result of his undocumented status. Morever, the existence of probable cause is not dependent on an arresting officer’s subjective belief. See United States v. Sledge,<\/em> 460 F.3d 963, 967 n.3 (8th Cir. 2006).<\/p>\n
We conclude that there was an objective basis to believe that Torres-Lona had violated immigration laws. Because his arrest was lawful under the Fourth Amendment, the search of his person incident to that arrest was also permissible under the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Robinson,<\/em> 414 U.S. 218, 235 (1973). The district court did not err in refusing to suppress evidence on this basis.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Defendant’s claim in his moving papers that probable cause was so lacking that the good faith exception could not apply was belied by the affidavit. Indeed, the court could not be sure which search was being challenged, so the motion was denied. United States v. Gonzalez, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47274 (N.D. Tex. June 28, 2007).*<\/p>\n
Defendant did not object to the taking of his blood by search warrant at trial, so under plain error review, it failed. It was presumed valid and he did nothing but unconvincingly argue to the contrary. Brown v. State, 11 So. 3d 866 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007), aff’d 2008 Ala. LEXIS 205 (Ala., Oct. 3, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading