The motion to suppress is denied because the defendant consented. The defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss for outrageous governmental conduct in the consent search is denied, and the government\u2019s motion for sanctions against defense counsel for being so far off the mark here is held in abeyance. United States v. Amar, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2653 (W.D. Okla. January 8, 2013). [Pursue the motion to suppress if you can, but don\u2019t seek sanctions unless you win easily. Just because the police violated the Fourth Amendment, the defense hardly is justified in seeking sanctions. If the search was that bad, presumably the government wouldn\u2019t have sought the indictment.]<\/p>\n
\u201cBut whether law enforcement officers had probable cause to believe the truck contained contraband, they had probable cause to believe it contained evidence of a crime. The totality of the circumstances \u2013 the wire intercepts, observations from the pole camera outside Mr. Davis’s home, and the agents’ knowledge and experience \u2013 allowed a reasonable officer to deduce with fair probability that the truck contained a secret compartment.\u201d United States v. Reese, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2422 (M.D. Ala. January 8, 2013).*<\/p>\n
The consent to search defendant\u2019s car was voluntary; she offered to let the officer search without being asked. United States v. Rodriguez, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2566 (S.D. Tex. January 8, 2013).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading