The USMJ\u2019s order is affirmed. The motion to suppress the search warrant is denied because there was probable cause. The search incident for evidence of violation of a no-contact order was properly ordered suppressed. United States v. Watson, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75584 (D. Mont. Apr. 29, 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIn general, or at the least a proposition of law accepted in light of Stewart’s failure to argue otherwise, an eyewitness identification creates probable cause justifying the warrantless search unless the officer or governmental agent has reason to believe that the witness was lying, was unable to accurately describe the underlying events or was somehow mistaken.\u201d \u201cIn light of the fact that the police officers had reliable information from an eyewitness claiming to have seen Stewart brandish a firearm he confessed to not being able to legally possess, the officers had probable cause to search Stewart’s vehicle for the evidence of the crime, including any container or area within the passenger compartment that could contain a weapon.\u201d State v. Stewart<\/a>, 2020-Ohio-2720, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 1681 (8th Dist. Apr. 30, 2020). The state search warrant was executed five days after issuance, and state law says that weekends and holidays aren\u2019t counted. There was a weekend involved. No violation of state law or the Fourth Amendment occurred [not that state law matters in federal court]. United States v. Allen, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75334 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 29, 2020).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The USMJ\u2019s order is affirmed. The motion to suppress the search warrant is denied because there was probable cause. The search incident for evidence of violation of a no-contact order was properly ordered suppressed. United States v. Watson, 2020 U.S. … Continue reading
<\/p>\n\n\n\n