Officers had probable cause to arrest defendant for child pornography before the search warrant was executed on his place. The lack of an arrest warrant does not mean they didn\u2019t have probable cause. United States v. Ruiz, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184393 (W.D.Tex. August 25, 2014)<\/p>\n
Even if defense counsel was deficient in not filing a motion to suppress in the face of significant evidence of third party consent, it was harmless error at the trial. \u201cIn light of the mountain of evidence put forth by multiple witnesses, the rather modest evidence seized from the apartment, was of little consequence.\u201d Therefore, no prejudice. United States v. Solano-Fell, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94629 (W.D.N.Y. July 21, 2015).*<\/p>\n
Marijuana smoke coming from the car and paraphernalia and marijuana leaves in plain view was at least reasonable suspicion, and the officer could ask questions about it. United States v. Williams, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94643 (N.D.Ga. March 13, 2015), adopted 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94666 (N.D.Ga. July 21, 2015).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Officers had probable cause to arrest defendant for child pornography before the search warrant was executed on his place. The lack of an arrest warrant does not mean they didn\u2019t have probable cause. United States v. Ruiz, 2014 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading