Seizing defendant’s wallet to determine his identity that led to his arrest did not nullify the arrest. United States v. Osborne, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47870 (E.D. Tenn. July 2, 2007):<\/p>\n
After carefully reviewing the R&R, the Court agrees with Judge Guyton that the police officers had a right to obtain defendant’s identity and that defendant therefore cannot allege a claim of violation of the Fourth Amendment on the basis of the officers’ means of so doing. See, e.g., U.S. v. Navarro-Diaz<\/em>, 420 F.3d 581, 586 (6th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, “even if obtained as a result of a search which went beyond the reasonable parameters of a protective sweep, can not be suppressed.” [Doc. 41 at 11.] As Judge Guyton went on to aptly note, “better procedures for obtaining the defendant’s identity perhaps were available,” [id.], but this alone does not justify the suppression of defendant’s arrest and the evidence seized thereby.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The affidavit for the arrest and search warrant for defendant’s vehicle showed sufficient nexus to believe that evidence of a crime would be found in defendant’s vehicle. It was believed he would be crossing the border, and it was logical that he would do so in his vehicle. United States v. Robinson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47999 (E.D. Tenn. July 2, 2007).*<\/p>\n
Plaintiff was arrested on a child support warrant after voluntarily appearing. It took five days to present him before a magistrate for a probable cause determination. The motion for summary judgment against his claim for false imprisonment was denied. Rodriguez v. Garcia, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48017 (D. P.R. July 2, 2007).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading