E.D.Cal.: The fact mj is legal in CA doesn’t make it so in a national park; plain smell was PC

Defendant’s stop was based on a radio report of an older Lexus driving erratically. When the officer saw the car, the LPN was expired. The stop led to the officer smelling marijuana. The smell was enough to invoke the automobile exception. A search of the car produced a weapon. Defendant moved to suppress and sought a hearing but didn’t specify the factual disputes. The bodycam is enough to decide these issues. It’s defendant’s brother’s car, but he’s given standing to contest the search of his luggage in the car. The fact marijuana is legal in California doesn’t make it legal in a national park. United States v. Gearhart, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89743 (E.D. Cal. May 17, 2024).*

The fact plaintiff was searched in the past doesn’t mean that there’s a risk of searches in the future to seek injunctive relief. Libman v. United States, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 12069 (9th Cir. May 20, 2024).*

The state post-conviction court’s determination that defendant consented to the taking of his DNA was not an unreasonable application of the law. Kennon v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89837 (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2024).*

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Plain view, feel, smell, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d). Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.