\u201cDefendant’s written motion to suppress the results of the search and seizure is brief, generic, and devoid of factual or legal argument specifically addressing the search warrant at issue now before the Court. Because Defendant has offered no sufficiently specific factual or legal grounds for suppression in his moving papers, the Court could recommend summarily denying Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained as a Result of Search and Seizure, [Docket No. 21], solely on the basis that Defendant has failed to meet his burden of production.\u201d [Citation of same court\u2019s cases omitted] On the merits, off the government\u2019s exhibits, there is probable cause for the search warrant. United States v. Furman, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31099 (D.Minn. February 18, 2015).<\/p>\n
Plaintiff stated a claim for relief for warrantless DNA swab taken from him in aid of a criminal investigation without court authorization. It is not per se reasonable as defendant\u2019s claim, and a hearing will have to be held. Lewis v. Brazell, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31232 (W.D.Ark. February 23, 2015).*<\/p>\n
Heading into an alley at night in a high crime area warranted the police at least checking. Asking defendant what he was doing, he said \u201ctaking a piss.\u201d When defendant lowered his hands he \u201ccontinually\u201d reached for a pocket and the officer conducted a frisk. It was with reasonable suspicion he was armed. United States v. Richardson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31191 (N.D.W.Va. March 12, 2015).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cDefendant’s written motion to suppress the results of the search and seizure is brief, generic, and devoid of factual or legal argument specifically addressing the search warrant at issue now before the Court. Because Defendant has offered no sufficiently specific … Continue reading