The search of defendant\u2019s coat in a separate room from him could not be justified under any exception to the warrant requirement: protective sweep, emergency\/exigency, Terry frisk, or search incident. Defendant did finally break away from the officers, too, making it far less likely that he\u2019d be able to get back to it past several officers. Motion to suppress granted. [Which begs this unanswered question: Did his flight from the scene constitute abandonment? If so, why didn’t the government argue that?] United States v. Casper, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104228 (E.D. Va. July 29, 2014).<\/p>\n
In a long discussion of credibility, the court concludes that it just cannot hold that the officer simply made up the story that he could smell marijuana coming from defendant\u2019s car at the time of the stop. The court finds the officer believable on that score, but, if you have the time, it\u2019s worth the read on how the court sifts and analyzes the evidence and credits defense counsel\u2019s efforts: \u201cIn a thorough and sifting cross examination, defense counsel highlighted a number of gaps and inconsistencies in Deputy Hultman’s memory of the traffic stop, especially when viewed in the light of testimony Deputy Hultman gave at a suppression hearing in Richmond County Superior Court on October 31, 2013.\u201d United States v. Nero, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104212 (S.D. Ga. June 19, 2014).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The search of defendant\u2019s coat in a separate room from him could not be justified under any exception to the warrant requirement: protective sweep, emergency\/exigency, Terry frisk, or search incident. Defendant did finally break away from the officers, too, making … Continue reading