Defendant was arrested in a prostitution sting, and his car was impounded and searched. The court suppresses the search under the community caretaking function for not following the rules of the department. The government has the burden on a warrantless search, and it failed here. The car was on a parking lot, and it was in nobody\u2019s way. United States v. Haynes, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133618 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 22, 2017).<\/p>\n
The parties base the motion to suppress solely on the police reports, and it\u2019s denied. \u201cBut Cuevas’s focus on duration-of-the-stop cases is misguided. Cuevas has not challenged the duration of the stop prior to Trooper Russell seeking consent and, in any event, that period was reasonable. Trooper Russell’s discussion with Cuevas, up to this point, was not unduly prolonged and Trooper Russell requested permission to search the car before he had even checked Cuevas’s license and registration, clearly a task essential to the issuance of a warning or ticket.\u201d United States v. Cuevas, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131411 (D. Mass. Aug. 17, 2017).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant was arrested in a prostitution sting, and his car was impounded and searched. The court suppresses the search under the community caretaking function for not following the rules of the department. The government has the burden on a warrantless … Continue reading