In a white collar case involving receipts of large sums of cash, it was reasonable for the USMJ to conclude on the totality that evidence, like cash, would be found in defendant\u2019s home. United States v. Martinez, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118760 (S.D. Fla. August 26, 2014). [Note the parallel to cases saying that where one’s home is a base of operations for drugs, it’s reasonable to infer drugs and cash will be found in the home.]<\/p>\n
No exigent circumstances exception was shown for a warrantless BAC in this case. The state argues that the compelled test is mandated in every DUI case because of the implied consent statute, but that\u2019s contrary to McNeely. State v. Fierro<\/a>, 2014 SD 62, 2014 S.D. LEXIS 95 (August 20, 2014).<\/p>\n Defendant was the subject of a CI\u2019s report, which was corroborated by surveillance for two weeks. When he was stopped, the car smelled of marijuana. The frisk of the person was justified. United States v. Watson, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117486 (E.D. N.C. August 22, 2014).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In a white collar case involving receipts of large sums of cash, it was reasonable for the USMJ to conclude on the totality that evidence, like cash, would be found in defendant\u2019s home. United States v. Martinez, 2014 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading