E.D.Mich.: Just because a motorist can be ordered out of the car, that doesn’t permit the officer to open the door for him

Just because a motorist can be ordered out of the car, that doesn’t enable the officer to open the door for him. “As explained above, however, Trooper Miller’s stated purpose included an investigatory motive—verifying whether ‘something’ had been concealed—and his officer safety rationale is unsupported by the evidence. Accordingly, this Court finds the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Ngumezi to be persuasive.” However, “Because Defendant has not demonstrated a causal nexus between the illegal search and his subsequent consent, the firearm will not be suppressed.” There otherwise was reasonable suspicion to extend the stop. The door opening was harmless. United States v. Jones, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99998 (E.D. Mich. May 27, 2021).

“[O]fficers may consider hearsay when determining probable cause.” United States v. Wright, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99866 (S.D. Ga. May 7, 2021).

Reference to a “criminal history” was not misleading under Franks. “Case law furthermore indicates that a ‘criminal history’ may include arrests. United States v. Stevens, 530 F.3d 714, 719 (8th Cir. 2008). Therefore, the Court finds that there was no false statement in the warrant affidavit, and Defendant cannot satisfy the first prong of Franks.” Even without the statement, there’s still probable cause. United States v. Woody, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99985 (W.D. Mo. May 26, 2021).

This entry was posted in Admissibility of evidence, Franks doctrine, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.