At least for standing, \u201cthe burden of proof for a motion to suppress is on the party seeking to suppress the evidence. United States v. Dickerson, 655 F.2d 559, 561 (4th Cir. 1981).\u201d United States v. Anderson, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99022 (N.D. W. Va. Apr. 14, 2021). As to standing yes; as to everything else, no. A warrantless search is presumptively invalid. See, e.g., McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 456 (1948); United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 51 (1951). When the government seeks to introduce evidence that was seized during a warrantless search, it bears the burden of showing an exception from the warrant requirement and that its conduct fell within the bounds of an exception to the warrant requirement. Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 390-91 (1978). If this case is limited to standing, it might be right. Defendant has to show standing, and the court holds he failed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The stop was based on a traffic offense, and reasonable suspicion developed after. State v. Ouverson<\/a>, 2021 Iowa App. LEXIS 428 (May 26, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" At least for standing, \u201cthe burden of proof for a motion to suppress is on the party seeking to suppress the evidence. United States v. Dickerson, 655 F.2d 559, 561 (4th Cir. 1981).\u201d United States v. Anderson, 2021 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading