Just because a motorist can be ordered out of the car, that doesn\u2019t enable the officer to open the door for him. \u201cAs explained above, however, Trooper Miller’s stated purpose included an investigatory motive\u2014verifying whether \u2018something\u2019 had been concealed\u2014and his officer safety rationale is unsupported by the evidence. Accordingly, this Court finds the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Ngumezi to be persuasive.\u201d However, \u201cBecause Defendant has not demonstrated a causal nexus between the illegal search and his subsequent consent, the firearm will not be suppressed.\u201d There otherwise was reasonable suspicion to extend the stop. The door opening was harmless. United States v. Jones, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99998 (E.D. Mich. May 27, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201c[O]fficers may consider hearsay when determining probable cause.\u201d United States v. Wright, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99866 (S.D. Ga. May 7, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Reference to a \u201ccriminal history\u201d was not misleading under Franks. \u201cCase law furthermore indicates that a \u2018criminal history\u2019 may include arrests. United States v. Stevens, 530 F.3d 714, 719 (8th Cir. 2008). Therefore, the Court finds that there was no false statement in the warrant affidavit, and Defendant cannot satisfy the first prong of Franks.\u201d Even without the statement, there\u2019s still probable cause. United States v. Woody, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99985 (W.D. Mo. May 26, 2021).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Just because a motorist can be ordered out of the car, that doesn\u2019t enable the officer to open the door for him. \u201cAs explained above, however, Trooper Miller’s stated purpose included an investigatory motive\u2014verifying whether \u2018something\u2019 had been concealed\u2014and his … Continue reading