{"id":3796,"date":"2010-07-13T06:35:25","date_gmt":"2010-02-01T08:24:45","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-02-01T08:24:45","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3796","title":{"rendered":"CA3: Motion to suppress that raised no factual issue could be decided on the papers"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Defendant did not allege a different factual version than what was contained in the police reports he attached to his motion to suppress.  Based on the police reports, the search was valid, so the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to suppress.  <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca3.uscourts.gov\/opinarch\/084871np.pdf\">United States v. Jackson<\/a>, 363 Fed. Appx. 208 (3d Cir. 2010) (unpublished)*:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Jackson did not offer any version of events contrary to the version contained in the police reports he attached to his motion. He based his request for an evidentiary hearing only on alleged discrepancies in the reports, which he argued raised questions about the truthfulness of the account provided, and raised the suggestion that the events leading to his arrest may have unfolded differently. This was not a sufficient showing under Brink and Voigt. Accordingly, there was no abuse of discretion in the District Court&#8217;s decision to deny an evidentiary hearing.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Defendant framed his argument against a knock-and-talk as requiring probable cause, but that \u201cis wide of the mark.\u201d Nothing is required for a knock-and-talk. \u201c[T]he reliability of the evidence leading the officers to the Arndt residence is of no legal consequence in a suppression motion.\u201d United States v. Arndt, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7146 (W.D. Mo. January 11, 2010).<\/p>\n<p>The totality of the evidence supports the district court\u2019s finding that defendant was seen with a gun. To credit defendant requires a finding that all the officers lied and that defendant\u2019s call to relatives after arrest that he had gun didn\u2019t happen.  <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca11.uscourts.gov\/unpub\/ops\/200911883.pdf\">United States v. Williams<\/a>, 363 Fed. Appx. 682 (11th Cir. 2010), certiorari denied 176 L. Ed. 2d 1238 (U.S. May 24, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3796\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3796","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3796","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3796"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3796\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3796"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3796"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3796"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}