{"id":51418,"date":"2022-02-04T05:06:25","date_gmt":"2022-02-04T10:06:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=51418"},"modified":"2022-02-04T05:06:25","modified_gmt":"2022-02-04T10:06:25","slug":"ca6-there-was-pc-and-exigency-for-search-of-car-even-though-district-court-didnt-say-automobile-exception","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=51418","title":{"rendered":"CA6: There was PC and exigency for search of car even though district court didn&#8217;t say &#8220;automobile exception&#8221;"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>The smell of marijuana from defendant\u2019s car was probable cause. The district court didn\u2019t say \u201cautomobile exception,\u201d but that\u2019s what it meant. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov\/opinions.pdf\/22a0021p-06.pdf\">United States v. Hall<\/a>, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 2983 (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Defendant\u2019s Franks allegation fails both showing knowing falsity and intent to deceive. \u201cAt the hearing, the Court discussed this lack of proof and extended Defendant additional time to submit an offer of proof for the Court&#8217;s consideration regarding his prima facie showing on the Franks issue. Defendant made no further submission.\u201d United States v. Swanson, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18868 (E.D.Tenn. Jan. 11, 2022),* adopted, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17936 (E.D.Tenn. Feb. 1, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Defendant\u2019s 404(b) motion in limine against an otherwise valid Title III telephone call is denied. \u201cCall 121 was the basis for the search warrant executed. Because Call 121 is intrinsic to the charged offense, the Court need not assess Pina&#8217;s Rule 404(b) argument.\u201d United States v. Pina-Nieves, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 252270 (D.P.R. Feb. 2, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The smell of marijuana from defendant\u2019s car was probable cause. The district court didn\u2019t say \u201cautomobile exception,\u201d but that\u2019s what it meant. United States v. Hall, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 2983 (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2022).* Defendant\u2019s Franks allegation fails &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=51418\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[124,36,21,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-51418","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-admissibility-of-evidence","category-automobile-exception","category-franks-doctrine","category-probable-cause"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51418","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=51418"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51418\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":51419,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51418\/revisions\/51419"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=51418"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=51418"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=51418"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}