Stop based on car stopping on the stop line was valid and not shown to be pretextual. Drug dog alert after that was valid. Arguments about the dog’s qualifications go to the weight of the evidence of PC, not lack of PC per se. United States v. Smith, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53693 (M.D. Fla. August 3, 2006).<\/p>\n
Defendant was visited by two officers in a child porn investigation who talked with him for two hours, and he was cooperative. They even let him take a telephone call he was expecting. Finally, the Mirandized him and asked to search the computer, and he let them. “Polk’s own testimony supports the conclusion that at the time of the interview in February 2005 Polk wanted very much to fully cooperate with the officers and was willing to consent to a search of the computer.” United States v. Polk, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53662 (D. Me. August 2, 2006) [one cannot say that the defendant’s testimony at the suppression hearing lost the motion; it looked like he was going to lose it anyway, so there was nothing to lose].*<\/p>\n
Defendant whose corporation bought limos that he rode in did not have standing to challenge their search. His use was hardly exclusive. United States v. Smith, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53649 (D. Minn. August 2, 2006).<\/p>\n
Defendant having pled guilty was not entitled to return of seized firearms under Rule 41(g), even for delivery to others, because he was no longer entitled to own them. United States v. Garman, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53616 (W.D. Wash. August 2, 2006).<\/p>\n
Officers did not violate Randolph<\/em> in gaining entrance into defendant’s home to question him about an anthrax scare. Indeed, Randolph<\/em> does not even apply because there was no one vetoing consent except defendant, and it came too late. There was no attempt to withdraw consent until after defendant confessed and was arrested. United States v. Dixon, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53842 (E.D. La. July 20, 2006).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evGMco.b2evALnk.b2WPAutP.b2evSmil Continue reading