It\u2019s clear from the testimony that the officer intended to arrest defendant, but it was without probable cause that he was so drunk he was a danger. The motion to suppress is granted, but the grounds change slightly on the motion to reconsider. United States v. Shepherd, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217503 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant was physically arrested for driving an unregistered vehicle [unusual, but not unconstitutional] and was subjected to a search incident. That produced a cell phone and other evidence. The phone was lawfully seized and a valid search warrant was later obtained for it based on probable cause. United States v. Graham, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 30382 (11th Cir. Dec. 2, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s stop was valid so his statement was not fruit of the poisonous tree. United States v. Hernandez-Guzman, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218396 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
It\u2019s clear from the testimony that the officer intended to arrest defendant, but it was without probable cause that he was so drunk he was a danger. The motion to suppress is granted, but the grounds change slightly on the … Continue reading