The search of defendant\u2019s vehicle was justified by the search incident doctrine and the automobile exception because the recording of defendant and the CI showed that there was likely a gun in the car. United States v. Bugh, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50198 (D. Minn. April 25, 2011).*<\/p>\n
Officers conducted a knock and talk and then procured a search warrant while there. Defendant contended outbuildings were searched before the warrant arrived. If that happened, there was probable cause without any taint. United States v. Johnson, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50625 (M.D. Fla. May 3, 2011).*<\/p>\n
Defendant was not told that if he didn\u2019t consent, a drug dog would be used; the officer said he would then ask<\/em> about using a drug dog. His consent was voluntary on the totality. United States v. $107,840.00 in United States Currency, 784 F. Supp. 2d 1109 (S.D. Iowa 2011).*<\/p>\n The trial court properly denied the motion to suppress without a hearing because it was apparent from the proof at the bench trial that the gun was seen in plain view in a car double parked that the police approached. People v Howard<\/a>, 32 Misc. 3d 31, 928 N.Y.S.2d 156 (2d Dept. May 9, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading