\u201cCorporal Spelying’s continued detention of the defendant to ask him questions regarding his suspended license and his travel itinerary did not violate the Fourth Amendment\u201d because he could smell marijuana immediately into the stop. United States v. Robertson, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53358 (M.D. La. April 17, 2014).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s consent was voluntary and not obtained by a ruse about the true intent of the consent. The consent ended up in a search warrant application. Even if the consent was invalid, there was probable cause without it. United States v. Juvenile Male, 968 F. Supp. 2d 490 (E.D. N.Y. 2013).*<\/p>\n
Defense counsel was not ineffective for not pursuing a search claim that would clearly lose. Orona v. United States, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54438 (D. Ariz. March 19, 2014).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cCorporal Spelying’s continued detention of the defendant to ask him questions regarding his suspended license and his travel itinerary did not violate the Fourth Amendment\u201d because he could smell marijuana immediately into the stop. United States v. Robertson, 2014 U.S. … Continue reading