The government sought forfeiture of the owner\u2019s cash after it was seized at DFW after a dog sniff on his bag. The owner responded with a motion to suppress under Rule 41, but that doesn\u2019t apply in forfeiture cases. Supplemental Rule G(8)(a) does. A knowing or substantial violation of the Fourth Amendment has to be shown. The government claims consent to search, and the owner doesn\u2019t really challenge that, arguing instead lack of a search warrant. There was reasonable suspicion for his stop boarding the airplane. The court finds consent. United States v. $39,900 in U.S. Currency, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7496 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 16, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There is no Fourth Amendment violation; therefore, qualified immunity doesn\u2019t even come up. By the video: When the officers tried to pull defendant over, he kept driving to his own house and jumped out of the car and pulled a gun. They shot him. This was reasonable. Hodge v. Engleman, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 994 (5th Cir. Jan. 16, 2024)* (why was this case even filed?).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Boilerplate information in the affidavit for warrant doesn\u2019t matter as long as the critical facts show probable cause, and here they did. There were five facts supporting probable cause here. United States v. Morton, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7580 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 16, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The government sought forfeiture of the owner\u2019s cash after it was seized at DFW after a dog sniff on his bag. The owner responded with a motion to suppress under Rule 41, but that doesn\u2019t apply in forfeiture cases. Supplemental … Continue reading