N.D.Tex.: Suppression in forfeiture is Supp.Rule G(8)(a) not Rule 41

The government sought forfeiture of the owner’s cash after it was seized at DFW after a dog sniff on his bag. The owner responded with a motion to suppress under Rule 41, but that doesn’t apply in forfeiture cases. Supplemental Rule G(8)(a) does. A knowing or substantial violation of the Fourth Amendment has to be shown. The government claims consent to search, and the owner doesn’t really challenge that, arguing instead lack of a search warrant. There was reasonable suspicion for his stop boarding the airplane. The court finds consent. United States v. $39,900 in U.S. Currency, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7496 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 16, 2024).

Defendant’s guilty plea waived his search claim, and thus an ineffective assistance of counsel on the merits of it. United States v. Dunigan, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9789 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 19, 2024);* Hernandez v. United States, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233462 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 18, 2023),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9112 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2024).*

Defendant’s stop was with reasonable suspicion, and a handgun was seen in the pocket of his black bag in plain view, and then a search incident was permissible. United States v. Maxwell, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8992 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 17, 2024).*

This entry was posted in F.R.Crim.P. 41, Plain view, feel, smell, Waiver. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.