Defendant\u2019s six arguments to suppress all rejected. Since the search warrant was issued by a state court judge and executed by state officers it did not need to comply with Rule 41, and the federal knock-and-announce statute, 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3109, did not apply. There was probable cause, and five day old information was not stale. United States v. Dodson, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49966 (N.D. Ind. April 4, 2013).*<\/p>\n
The encounter started as a \u201cmotorist assist\u201d and reasonable suspicion developed. \u201cAt his initial contact with Defendants, Trooper Schmiedt became suspicious. To begin, it was obvious to Trooper Schmiedt that Defendants wanted him gone. This was the first time that Trooper Schmiedt had initiated a motorist assist and the motorist was not open to assistance.\u201d United States v. Salgado, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48696 (D. S.D. April 1, 2013).*<\/p>\n
Trash left at the curb was treated as abandoned and is seizable. United States v. Barker, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50376 (D. Minn. March 25, 2013).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading