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
Defendant\u2019s guilty plea waived his search claim, and thus an ineffective assistance of counsel on the merits of it. United States v. Dunigan, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9789 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 19, 2024);* Hernandez v. United States, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233462 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 18, 2023),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9112 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s stop was with reasonable suspicion, and a handgun was seen in the pocket of his black bag in plain view, and then a search incident was permissible. United States v. Maxwell, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8992 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 17, 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