NM: Motion to suppress checkpoint stop too general to put state on notice

“We conclude Defendant’s motion was insufficiently particular to alert the metropolitan court or State that the grounds for suppressing evidence related to the checkpoint’s illegality.” “Defendant’s motion, rather, was based upon the State lacking reasonable suspicion to detain Defendant. The reasonable suspicion required for a continued investigatory detention related to a sobriety checkpoint, however, is not required to stop a particular motorist at the checkpoint initially; the legality of a checkpoint stop and the legality of an investigative detention arising from that stop are distinct issues such that raising one does not necessarily implicate the other.” State v. Hebenstreit, 2022 N.M. App. LEXIS 20 (Apr. 12, 2022).

The affidavit for this search warrant provided probable cause to search defendant’s home. It showed a connection between defendant’s alleged drug dealing and his house. United States v. Maye, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66264 (D.Conn. Apr. 11, 2022).*

The court “recommits” the R&R to the USMJ to determine standing. Three people were in the car. United States v. Garth, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66535 (E.D.Tenn. Apr. 11, 2022).*

Defendant was medevaced by helicopter after a car crash. Her blood was drawn for medical purposes, not investigation. It was reasonable. It would also have taken four hours to get a BAC search warrant. State v. Moore, 2022 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 164 (Apr. 12, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading, Chekpoints, Private search, Probable cause, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.