The officers had no objective information that even suggested that a protective sweep was required here, and the warrantless entry into the home was unreasonable. Moreover, the claimed consent wasn\u2019t voluntary. United States v. Lawley, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125920 (D. Utah July 27, 2018).<\/p>\n
\u201c[T]he Court concludes that his testimony that he smelled marijuana in Lyles’ vehicle was credible. The Court notes that, while Sgt. Moody did not mention on the body camera video that he smelled marijuana, the evidence offered at the suppression hearing, including his sworn testimony, supports the conclusion that he smelled marijuana in the vehicle. That evidence includes the facts that the incident report and supplemental report that he prepared shortly after the incident reflected that he smelled marijuana in the vehicle, he was in a position to have smelled marijuana in the vehicle, and user-quantities of marijuana were ultimately found in the vehicle.\u201d United States v. Lyles, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125933 (D.S.C. July 27, 2018).* (If marijuana is actually found, the post hoc claim \u201cI could smell it\u201d always works, even if not true. It is true, of course, that marijuana can be smelled in a car long after it was there or was smoked there, and the driver doesn\u2019t notice anymore.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The officers had no objective information that even suggested that a protective sweep was required here, and the warrantless entry into the home was unreasonable. Moreover, the claimed consent wasn\u2019t voluntary. United States v. Lawley, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125920 … Continue reading