An IRS criminal investigator\u2019s silence about his real purpose when he sought consent for records was not a misrepresentation to the taxpayer when he got consent for records. United States v. Kim, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98269 (N.D. Cal. September 3, 2010).*<\/p>\n
The search of defendant\u2019s person was without probable cause, and the frisk was without reasonable suspicion, so the gun had to be suppressed. The record was \u201cdevoid\u201d of anything like probable cause, and there were no indicators of reasonable suspicion. Essentially, defendant was searched because he was with somebody else who was. Motion to suppress granted. A motion to suppress is not required to be accompanied by an affidavit. Rule 47<\/a> says \u201cmay.\u201d United States v. Matias-Maestres, 738 F. Supp. 2d 281 (D.P.R. 2010).*<\/p>\n Defendant\u2019s stop was because the license plate light was out. When the officer approached, he could smell marijuana, and that justified the subsequent search. United States v. Bruce, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97976 (M.D. Ala. August 31, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading