\u201c[T]he detection of the odor of a methamphetamine cook by officers trained or experienced with the odor, coupled with the activity of the occupant in actively hiding or destroying materials and the fact that most of the windows of the trailer were covered, all of which was observed before the entry, would provide sufficient probable cause for the search warrant. See United States v. Shuck, 713 F.3d 563 (10th Cir. 2013), a case with remarkably similar facts.\u201d United States v. Richardson, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75946 (N.D. W.Va. May 30, 2013).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s IAC claim on failure to object to a probation search of his car failed because the \u201crecord also suggests the search was premised upon Strother’s consent.\u201d State v. Strother<\/a>, 2013 Iowa App. LEXIS 561 (May 30, 2013).*<\/p>\n Defendant\u2019s Franks challenge to the officer\u2019s claim in the search warrant about the agent using his cell phone during the surveillance fails. The evidence at the hearing shows that defendant failed in his burden of proof. Even if he used the cell phone during surveillance, so what? The same is the outcome of the other objections: Even if the defendant\u2019s allegations could be proved, they aren\u2019t material to the outcome. United States v. Morales-Castro, 947 F. Supp. 2d 166 (D. P.R. 2013).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading