After defendant\u2019s motion to suppress was denied, the government alerted the court and defense to an internal investigation of the state trooper involved just concluded where 43 instances of violation of policy and procedure were documented. The search here turned on officer credibility and the community caretaking function. On reconsideration, the court finds the officer not believable and not acting as a legitimate community caretaker in seizing defendant\u2019s car. United States v. Soto-Lopez, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220466 (D. Alaska Oct. 14, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There was probable cause from three controlled buys and the police determining that defendant would likely have drugs in the car the day they stopped him. United States v. Febles, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219268 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 6, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On a sentencing issue, the officers had authority to open a safe with a key from another person. The contents were linked to defendant, and the search of the safe was within the warrant\u2019s scope. Harcrow v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220471 (W.D. Ark. Nov. 18, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
After defendant\u2019s motion to suppress was denied, the government alerted the court and defense to an internal investigation of the state trooper involved just concluded where 43 instances of violation of policy and procedure were documented. The search here turned … Continue reading