\u201c\u2018The standard for probable cause in forfeiture proceedings resembles that required to support a search warrant. The determination of probable cause is based upon a \u201ctotality of the circumstances\u201d test, and the government’s evidence must be more than that which gives rise to a mere suspicion, although it need not rise to the level of prima facie proof.\u2019 [citations omitted]\u201d United States v. One Gray 2019 BMW 330I, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112435 (C.D. Cal. May 2, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Idaho declines to not apply the attenuation doctrine under the state constitution. Whether handcuffing was an arrest or not, the officer would have found out about defendant\u2019s search waiver as soon as his DL was called in. State v. Campbell, 2024 Ida. LEXIS 62 (June 27, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThus, the Court will adopt the R&R in large part because Agent Gonzalez provided objective and particularized reasons to initiate the stop.\u201d United States v. Witt, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113283 (D. Ariz. June 27, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201c\u2018The standard for probable cause in forfeiture proceedings resembles that required to support a search warrant. The determination of probable cause is based upon a \u201ctotality of the circumstances\u201d test, and the government’s evidence must be more than that which … Continue reading