D.Mass.: Motion to suppress denied without a hearing for failure to show a factual dispute

Defendant’s stop for swerving was valid, and she consented to a search of the car producing over 1.9 kg of heroin. Her motion to suppress is denied without a hearing for failure to provide a factual dispute. United States v. Santiago, 826 F. Supp. 2d 337 (D. Mass. 2011)*:

In this case, an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary. Ortiz’s motion to suppress contains a plethora of search and seizure law, but only a scintilla applicable to the instant case. Moreover, her affidavit in support of her motion to suppress is full of high-sounding legal conclusions, such as “the stop of my motor vehicle was made without reasonable suspicion or probable cause” and “I was questioned in a custodial setting,” but is devoid of any detailed factual basis to support those conclusions. Ortiz does allege that she “did not voluntarily consent to [a] search of my vehicle,” but, consistent with the rest of her affidavit, she fails to submit a credible alternative narrative of events and makes no offer of proof that might support her allegation.

The vehicle was stopped for not being registered, and the inventory thereafter was valid because it couldn’t be driven away. United States v. Glover, 441 Fed. Appx. 748 (11th Cir. 2011).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.