Defendant was arrested at someone else\u2019s home, and he had a bag. The homeowner wouldn\u2019t take responsibility for the bag, so it went with defendant, and its inventory was reasonable on the totality. \u201cThus, whether or not the Officers’ testimony regarding their purpose for undertaking the search of Defendant’s property is credible, the fact that DASO possessed a legitimate justification for performing an inventory search combined with the Officers’ use of standardized procedures means that the search did not violate constitutional requirements and its fruits are thus admissible.\u201d United States v. Silva, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9137 (D. N.M. Jan. 19, 2018).<\/p>\n
The trial testimony showed that there was consent to search granted by the defendant. Defendant fails to show counsel was ineffective for not challenging the search. Molina-Sanchez v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8871 (W.D. N.C. Jan. 19, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant was arrested at someone else\u2019s home, and he had a bag. The homeowner wouldn\u2019t take responsibility for the bag, so it went with defendant, and its inventory was reasonable on the totality. \u201cThus, whether or not the Officers’ testimony … Continue reading