Defendant was neither the shipper nor recipient of a USPS parcel with drugs in it, opened six weeks after it was unclaimed. He had no standing in it. United States v. Bell, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78182 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 30, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant totaled his car in a wreck. \u201cIn this case, Defendant s arrest for DWI coupled with the crashed SUV either: (1) required NMSP officers to conduct a pre-tow inventory, or (2) allowed NMSP officers to conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle for evidence relevant to the crime of arrest. \u2026 Either way, Defendant s argument for suppression fails.\u201d United States v. Vallez, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78985 (D.N.M. Apr. 30, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant was wanted and was seen at a car wash with his car. Police confronted him and arrested him. His car was searched, and his backpack was searched after he was placed in a patrol car, and he was a felon in possession. The government conceded the search incident doctrine did not apply, but inventory and inevitable discovery did, which is what the court found. The fact the officer believed a search incident was permissible didn\u2019t mean that he wasn\u2019t acting in good faith. In addition, the government\u2019s effort to justify it as a search incident was out of time [but doesn\u2019t ultimately matter]. United States v. Harper, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78716 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 30, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant was neither the shipper nor recipient of a USPS parcel with drugs in it, opened six weeks after it was unclaimed. He had no standing in it. United States v. Bell, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78182 (M.D. Pa. Apr. … Continue reading