\u201cNext, Grant’s behavior once the traffic stop occurred gave police additional reasons to suspect that he was involved in criminal activity. King’s testimony and the video evidence presented during the hearing support the conclusion that Defendant Grant was attempting to distance himself from the vehicle carrying the methamphetamine. In addition to exiting the vehicle before it had come to a complete stop, placing his hands in the air, and moving toward the second police vehicle, he also disclaimed ownership of anything in the car except for a backpack located in the back seat area. And his several disclaimers occurred without questioning or prompting.\u201d United States v. Grant, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56679 (E.D.Ky. Mar. 29, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The warrant here wasn\u2019t general. \u201cListing only \u2018evidence of crime\u2019 as a description of the things to be seized does not satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement and \u2018can only be described as a general warrant.\u2019 \u2026 However, the warrant here was far more specific than the warrant in Stefonek, as it listed the specific types of items which law enforcement believed would have evidence of the crime of visa fraud. Petitioner does not argue that law enforcement did not have probable cause to conduct the search or to seize the items listed. And, evidence of foreign workers logically relates to the visa fraud crime that law enforcement had probable cause to believe Petitioner had committed.\u201d Gire v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56723 (C.D.Ill. Mar. 29, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cNext, Grant’s behavior once the traffic stop occurred gave police additional reasons to suspect that he was involved in criminal activity. King’s testimony and the video evidence presented during the hearing support the conclusion that Defendant Grant was attempting to … Continue reading