{"id":3901,"date":"2010-02-27T12:40:30","date_gmt":"2010-02-27T12:17:09","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-02-27T12:17:09","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3901","title":{"rendered":"E.D.Tex.: Court puts burden on defendant to show warrantless search unreasonable [Wrong!]"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Defendant did not show that the traffic stop and computer checks were unreasonable in their length.   [What happened to the burden of proof for the government to prove that the stop was reasonable since it was a <em>warrantless<\/em> stop and search? Who has the burden of proof anyway?]  United States v. Garcia-Santos, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16069 (E.D. Tex. February 16, 2010).*<\/p>\n<p>Defendant\u2019s 2255 IAC argument about his search was not an issue for the jury on guilt or innocence.  Garner v. United States, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16090 (D. Kan. February 22, 2010):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Petitioner&#8217;s last two arguments, that his attorney failed to argue and present evidence to the jury regarding claims of Fourth Amendment violations, would not have impacted the jury&#8217;s verdict. In fact, arguments regarding Fourth Amendment violations are not proper arguments for counsel to make to a jury. This court properly addressed these legal issues on petitioner&#8217;s motion to suppress. &#8230;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The defendant\u2019s stop was reasonable in length, and the defendant was found to have cooperated with the officer.  Alternatively, the officer had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant.  United States v. Rodriguez-Lara, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16371 (D. Utah January 27, 2010).*<\/p>\n<p>Motion to suppress without argument was denied. United States v. Beliveau, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15981 (D. Minn. January 22, 2010).*<\/p>\n<p>A path from defendant\u2019s house to a marijuana patch was nexus to the house, and there was thus probable cause for the search warrant. United States v. Witherspoon, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16965 (W.D. Ky. February 24, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3901\">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-3901","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3901","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=3901"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3901\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3901"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3901"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3901"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}