\u201cDuring the stop, Mr. Winston himself confirmed that the roaches were marijuana; his possession charge, however, is not based on them. There was thus no reason to test the roaches to confirm the presence of marijuana. The failure on the part of the United States to run that test provides no basis to undermine a finding of probable cause, nor does it in any other way justify exclusion of the evidence here.\u201d United States v. Winston, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180990 (D. Minn. Sep. 4, 2024),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180157 (D. Minn. Oct. 2, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Non-anonymous 911 call coupled with officer\u2019s observations of defendant\u2019s driving justified his stop. People v. Johnson, 2024 IL App (4th) 231185 (Oct. 2, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe Court will assume, for the purposes of Defendant’s [habeas] petition, that the outcome of his case would have been different if the evidence from his vehicle had been suppressed. But the Court cannot conclude that a motion to suppress would have had any merit.\u201d The stop was valid, as was the following search incident. United States v. Henderson, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180433 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 2, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cDuring the stop, Mr. Winston himself confirmed that the roaches were marijuana; his possession charge, however, is not based on them. There was thus no reason to test the roaches to confirm the presence of marijuana. The failure on the … Continue reading