All the exigency requirement of the automobile exception requires is that the vehicle be capable of moving, and the government showed that here. United States v. Odom, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89985 (S.D. Fla. September 11, 2008)*:<\/p>\n
Here, the evidence shows that Defendant’s van appeared capable of functioning at the time of the search. Law enforcement observed Defendant drive the van into the parking lot, just moments before the search. Moreover, based on the CS’ statements and recorded conversations, law enforcement had strong reason to believe the van had just been driven several hours from several miles away with no problem. Based on this evidence, there existed no reason for law enforcement to believe the van was not operational at the time of the search. To the contrary, the evidence points to the conclusion that the van was fully capable of functioning. The clear law of this circuit, cited above, forecloses any argument by Defendant that the search of his van was unlawful because all the suspects were in police custody and that the police had possession of his car keys.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Officers testified that they could see drugs on the kitchen table from outside the front door. That was a valid plain view, and that justified the entry. United States v. Boutte, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90100 (W.D. La. October 3, 2008).*<\/p>\n
Defendant’s 2255 petition amounted to nothing more than an effort to relitigate the search issue he lost before trial, so it is barred on post-conviction. Dumas v. United States, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90125 (W.D. N.C. September 24, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading