The stop was justified because the taillights were \u201csmoked out\u201d and one couldn\u2019t adequately see them. During the stop, the officer smelled marijuana, but he didn\u2019t act on that alone. He asked questions, saw the medical marijuana card, but he also saw enough marijuana packaging that strongly suggested defendant was not just a lawful user. \u201cOfficer Munoz had probable cause to search Moore’s car because he had diligently investigated to confirm or dispel his suspicions that Moore possessed more than the allowable amount of marijuana and was engaged in sales of the drug.\u201d United States v. Moore, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212729 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Even if defendant\u2019s cell phone was illegally searched to get its serial number (compare Arizona v. Hicks), three witnesses provided information that there was child pornography on the cell phone and any motion to suppress would have be denied. Therefore, defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not making that serial number challenge. United States v. Soto, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211931 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Officers had probable cause defendant was hauling bulk cash when he was stopped, and that permitted a search of the whole vehicle. United States v. Zeng, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212044 (D. Mass. Nov. 29, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The stop was justified because the taillights were \u201csmoked out\u201d and one couldn\u2019t adequately see them. During the stop, the officer smelled marijuana, but he didn\u2019t act on that alone. He asked questions, saw the medical marijuana card, but he … Continue reading