\u201c[T]he court does not find that Deputy Schneider’s use of the density meter was unauthorized by the defendant\u2019s consent to \u2018take a quick look in the car.\u2019\u201d The search took six minutes and qualified. United States v. Long Tien Dang, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56875 (D. Kan. April 24, 2012).*<\/p>\n
A general objection to a USMJ\u2019s R&R only requires plain error review. United States v. Sanchez-Tamayo, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57126 (N.D. Ga. April 23, 2012) (USMJ 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154851 (N.D. Ga. November 28, 2011)*:<\/p>\n
Defendants make no attempt to specify why they disagree with the magistrate judge’s conclusions. “In order to trigger de novo review of an R&R, the objection must be ‘specific.'” United States v. Diaz, No. 1:09-CR-0037-WBH, 2011 WL 344093, at *1 (Jan. 31, 2011) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b)(2)). “General objections which reassert arguments by reference to prior pleadings do not suffice.” Id. (citing Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n. 8 (5th Cir. 1982). In the absence of objections filed in accordance with Rule 59(b)(2), this court need only perform plain error review. Id.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Running a stop sign was reason enough for a stop. State v. Edmonds<\/a>, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 241 (April 23, 2012).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading