The officer testified that he first smelled raw marijuana about a minute into the stop. When he got defendant into the patrol car, he could smell it on defendant\u2019s person. That was probable cause for a search of the car under the automobile exception. United States v. Brown, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 250888 (E.D.Tenn. Dec. 21, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThompson generally recites the law concerning the propriety of a traffic stop, but he never develops an argument that the trial court erred by finding the stop here proper. He has therefore waived that argument.\u201d Deciding that issue anyway, the stop was proper. State v. Thompson<\/a>, 2022 Ariz. LEXIS 37 (Jan. 19, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Defendant had standing in a borrowed car. \u201cProperty concepts are instructive on whether privacy interests are reasonable, but privacy rights need not be based on a common-law interest in property. Byrd v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 1518, 1526 (2021). \u2018The proponent of a motion to suppress has the burden of adducing facts at the suppression hearing indicating that his own rights were violated by the challenged search.\u2019 United States v. Eckhart, 569 F.3d 1263, 1274 (10th Cir. 2009) (citations and quotation marks omitted).\u201d United States v. Romero, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9246 (D.N.M. Jan. 19, 2022).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The officer testified that he first smelled raw marijuana about a minute into the stop. When he got defendant into the patrol car, he could smell it on defendant\u2019s person. That was probable cause for a search of the car … Continue reading