Defendant\u2019s vehicle was stopped and ultimately removed to another location for a dog sniff to get probable cause for a search warrant for the car. The removal was unreasonable and justified under the Fourth Amendment. The dog sniff was several hours later. The warrant was tainted by these actions. \u201cBased on the foregoing, this case is a perfect example as to why the exclusionary rule was created and therefore should be applied to the evidence seized from the defendant’s Cadillac vehicle on June 21, 2019.\u201d United States v. Washington, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 235490 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant filed a motion to suppress which had already been denied. He sought additional discovery of those who might have been involved in the searches. Denied. Another motion to suppress wouldn\u2019t be timely. United States v. Garg, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6086 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 12, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2254 petitioner had his \u201cfull and fair\u201d opportunity to litigate his motion to suppress and lost on the merits. Stone bars relief. Boyington v. Dixon, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 235465 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 8, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s vehicle was stopped and ultimately removed to another location for a dog sniff to get probable cause for a search warrant for the car. The removal was unreasonable and justified under the Fourth Amendment. The dog sniff was several … Continue reading