CA6: There was PC and exigency for search of car even though district court didn’t say “automobile exception”

The smell of marijuana from defendant’s car was probable cause. The district court didn’t say “automobile exception,” but that’s what it meant. United States v. Hall, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 2983 (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2022).*

Defendant’s Franks allegation fails both showing knowing falsity and intent to deceive. “At the hearing, the Court discussed this lack of proof and extended Defendant additional time to submit an offer of proof for the Court’s consideration regarding his prima facie showing on the Franks issue. Defendant made no further submission.” United States v. Swanson, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18868 (E.D.Tenn. Jan. 11, 2022),* adopted, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17936 (E.D.Tenn. Feb. 1, 2022).*

Defendant’s 404(b) motion in limine against an otherwise valid Title III telephone call is denied. “Call 121 was the basis for the search warrant executed. Because Call 121 is intrinsic to the charged offense, the Court need not assess Pina’s Rule 404(b) argument.” United States v. Pina-Nieves, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 252270 (D.P.R. Feb. 2, 2022).*

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

Comments are closed.