Defendant’s indefinitely suspended driver’s license supported a search incident, but there were unmistakable signs that the door had been tampered with, despite defendant’s denials, and that gave probable cause to remove the door panel. United States v. Gillespie, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64478 (W.D. Mich. August 30, 2007).*<\/p>\n
While defendant’s case had been remanded under Booker<\/em>, it was not clear that he could have his search reconsidered under Randolph<\/em><\/a> which was decided while the case was still not final. Nevertheless, inevitable discovery under Nix v. Williams<\/em><\/a> because the officers had already “formed the intent” to get a search warrant and would have. They were securing the premises when consent was granted, as they could under Segura<\/em><\/a>. United States v. Bowden<\/a>, 240 Fed. Appx. 56, 2007 FED App. 0617N (6th Cir. 2007)* (unpublished).<\/p>\n Officers got a tip that a man was acting suspicious at a car wash and they found the defendant, without a car, with a latex glove on one hand feeding money into the change machine getting an “inordinately large number” of quarters. This was cause for a stop for “defrauding the change machine” because it appeared defendant was “laundering” the bills without leaving fingerprints. United States v. Jackson<\/a>, 240 Fed. Appx. 88, 2007 FED App. 0622N (6th Cir. 2007)* (unpublished).<\/p>\n Defendant’s conduct was sufficiently suspicious to a trained officer to constitute probable cause on the totality for his search. Commonwealth v. El<\/a>, 2007 PA Super 275, 933 A.2d 657 (2007).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading