Defendant was seen around an apartment complex, and officers knew that there was an arrest warrant for him. They had their \u201ceye out\u201d for him. He was seen, the officer called out to him, and he fled into an apartment. It was determined that the apartment was not his, and there was no discernable connection to him and the apartment. Officers banged on the door for him to come out, and they finally got \u201cI\u2019m coming,\u201d but he didn\u2019t come out. They were afraid he was arming himself or was destroying evidence, so they secured a ballistic shield and broke in. Defendant was found hiding inside, and a protective sweep was done. Marijuana was found in plain view 5′ from defendant\u2019s point of arrest. Nobody would consent to a search so a search warrant was obtained for the apartment. The entry was valid. United States v. Willis, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103223 (E.D. Mich. September 29, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s tractor trailer seen in a truck stop was unregistered and appeared overweight. This justified a stop when the truck pulled out. The officer developed reasonable suspicion that the truck had drugs in it from various factors, including the fact the truck was off route and passed up several places to refuel to do so farther from the highway to be less noticeable. Defendant consented to a search of the trailer. United States v. Mungia, 743 F. Supp. 2d 694 (E.D. Mich. 2010).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s motion to suppress cellular telephone site location information produced by administrative subpoena without a showing of probable cause is moot because the government is not going to rely on the information. The government\u2019s claims that the cell provider conducted a private search or that inevitable discovery would somehow validate it were rejected. The cell provider should not have given the information, but it did, but the government\u2019s disclaimer of the evidence leaves defendant with only a possible civil remedy against the cell phone provider. United States v. Redd, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103385 (D. Kan. September 29, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading