Defendant was found to have consented to a search of his car after the stop was based on knowledge of a warrant. He was at least twice told he could refuse consent. And \u201c[h]e did not interview with the Pretrial Services Officer so the amount of his education is not available; he appears intelligent enough making a practice of not consenting to a search or refusing to speak to the Pretrial Services Officer; there was no problem with his language ability.\u201d United States v. Capps, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60054 (E.D. Mo. February 24, 2012).*<\/p>\n
Defendant was found to have consented. Even if he hadn\u2019t, the drugs would inevitably have been found by an inventory search on impoundment because the officers already knew that the LPN didn\u2019t belong with the car. United States v. Capps, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60055 (E.D. Mo. April 30, 2012).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s statutory argument that a city could not impose its city speed limit on unimproved land near the border is rejected. Peck v. State, 153 Idaho 37, 278 P.3d 439 (App. 2012).*<\/p>\n
Defendant was detained for Miranda and Fourth Amendment purposes when he was found nearly dying in the desert and Border Patrol EMT\u2019s questioned him. United States v. Vasquez-Corrales, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59818 (D. Ariz. April 5, 2012).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading