\u201cFor all these reasons, the Court is persuaded that probable cause requires more than what the agents in this case knew at the time of arrest. Here, the strongest evidence the agents had was that the broker reported \u2018they\u2019 were there (though where exactly is unclear) around the time (though when exactly is unclear) the red BMW arrived at the La Quinta. However, the broker never indicated who \u2018they\u2019 were or what \u2018they\u2019 were there to do\u2014which, due to a circumstance of the agents’ own making, could have been to attempt to repair the car. Aside from that message, all the agents had at the time they made the decision to arrest was a man who parked near and approached a car. At the time the arrest was actually made, agents also knew the man sat in the car for a few minutes, giving no indication he was aware the car contained drugs, then exited and appeared to prepare to leave the scene and the drugs. The Court cannot find that these events, without more, created probable cause that that man had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime.\u201d United States v. Moreles-Albear, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100305 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 1, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cFor all these reasons, the Court is persuaded that probable cause requires more than what the agents in this case knew at the time of arrest. Here, the strongest evidence the agents had was that the broker reported \u2018they\u2019 were … Continue reading