This parole search wasn’t shown to be unreasonable. \u201cAs discussed in the above cited case law, there is a significant government interest in combating recidivism and thwarting illegal drug activity by parolees. Defendant has failed to point to any direct or strong circumstantial evidence in the record indicating circumstances that would render the search unreasonable in a constitutional sense.\u201d United States v. Edmiston, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45861 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 11, 2021). [This is a warrantless search, so why isn’t the burden on the government to prove it reasonable?]<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress search of his garage. The garage and things on the curtilage are covered for a warrant for the \u201cresidence.\u201d Mahan v. United States, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46614 (E.D. La. Mar. 12, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The officer\u2019s smelling and then seeing marijuana justified an automobile exception search of defendant\u2019s car. State v. Brown<\/a>, 2021-Ohio-753, 2021 Ohio App. LEXIS 775 (6th Dist. Mar. 12, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This parole search wasn’t shown to be unreasonable. \u201cAs discussed in the above cited case law, there is a significant government interest in combating recidivism and thwarting illegal drug activity by parolees. Defendant has failed to point to any direct … Continue reading