Here, the AUSA was apparently confused in pleadings as to which cell phone was searched, a white or black one. When the AUSA learned that the wrong one was spoken of, he or she had a duty to promptly clarify\u2013not wait until oral argument on the motion. [The word candor as in candor about the facts is never mentioned, but that\u2019s what this is all about. RPC 3.3(a)(1).] United States v. Nash, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233418, 2024 WL 5239792 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2024). (This is also going into \u00a7 3:10 n.24 of Professional Responsibility in Criminal Defense Practice 2025-26 update (on Westlaw too).)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s claim that the smell of raw cannabis in a car can\u2019t form the basis of probable cause wasn\u2019t presented below. State v. Rodriguez, 2024 Ohio App. LEXIS 4683 (5th Dist. Dec. 27, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s demeanor after the dog alerted on the car justified his patdown. State v. Denoncourt, 2024 Fla. App. LEXIS 9971 (Fla. 5th DCA Dec. 27, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Here, the AUSA was apparently confused in pleadings as to which cell phone was searched, a white or black one. When the AUSA learned that the wrong one was spoken of, he or she had a duty to promptly clarify\u2013not … Continue reading