W.D.N.Y.: Incorrect AUSA assertion about which phone was searched had to be promptly clarified, not when he or she felt like it

Here, the AUSA was apparently confused in pleadings as to which cell phone was searched, a white or black one. When the AUSA learned that the wrong one was spoken of, he or she had a duty to promptly clarify–not wait until oral argument on the motion. [The word candor as in candor about the facts is never mentioned, but that’s what this is all about. RPC 3.3(a)(1).] United States v. Nash, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233418, 2024 WL 5239792 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2024). (This is also going into § 3:10 n.24 of Professional Responsibility in Criminal Defense Practice 2025-26 update (on Westlaw too).)

Defendant’s claim that the smell of raw cannabis in a car can’t form the basis of probable cause wasn’t presented below. State v. Rodriguez, 2024 Ohio App. LEXIS 4683 (5th Dist. Dec. 27, 2024).*

Defendant’s demeanor after the dog alerted on the car justified his patdown. State v. Denoncourt, 2024 Fla. App. LEXIS 9971 (Fla. 5th DCA Dec. 27, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading, Reasonable suspicion, Waiver, Warrant papers. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.