Defendant\u2019s stop was based on a radio report of an older Lexus driving erratically. When the officer saw the car, the LPN was expired. The stop led to the officer smelling marijuana. The smell was enough to invoke the automobile exception. A search of the car produced a weapon. Defendant moved to suppress and sought a hearing but didn\u2019t specify the factual disputes. The bodycam is enough to decide these issues. It\u2019s defendant\u2019s brother\u2019s car, but he\u2019s given standing to contest the search of his luggage in the car. The fact marijuana is legal in California doesn\u2019t make it legal in a national park. United States v. Gearhart, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89743 (E.D. Cal. May 17, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The fact plaintiff was searched in the past doesn\u2019t mean that there\u2019s a risk of searches in the future to seek injunctive relief. Libman v. United States, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 12069 (9th Cir. May 20, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The state post-conviction court\u2019s determination that defendant consented to the taking of his DNA was not an unreasonable application of the law. Kennon v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89837 (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s stop was based on a radio report of an older Lexus driving erratically. When the officer saw the car, the LPN was expired. The stop led to the officer smelling marijuana. The smell was enough to invoke the automobile … Continue reading