An oil rig worker returning from a rig in the Gulf of Mexico crossed the border for purposes of a border search. The point of origin of the trip is irrelevant; the fact of a border crossing is what makes it reasonable. The oil rig is a federal enclave, but defendant traveled through international waters to get back to shore. Child pornography was found on his computer during a border search. United States v. Pickett, 598 F.3d 231 (5th Cir. 2010) (this per curiam opinion is not on the court’s website).<\/p>\n
The record supports the conclusion that officers smelled burning marijuana when the defendant\u2019s car was stopped, and that led to a search. United States v. Hunter<\/a>, 373 Fed. Appx. 973 (11th Cir. 2010) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n Defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging the consent search. On the merits, a motion to suppress would fail on alleged coercion. Therefore, no IAC. United States v. Henderson, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38147 (M.D. Pa. April 19, 2010).*<\/p>\n Defendant admitted he was lawfully stopped and ordered out of the car. He admitted that he had unlawful prescription drugs in the car. That justified a search. United States v. Schlatter, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38258 (N.D. Ind. April 19, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading