Defendant\u2019s stop for swerving was valid, and she consented to a search of the car producing over 1.9 kg of heroin. Her motion to suppress is denied without a hearing for failure to provide a factual dispute. United States v. Santiago, 826 F. Supp. 2d 337 (D. Mass. 2011)*:<\/p>\n
In this case, an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary. Ortiz’s motion to suppress contains a plethora of search and seizure law, but only a scintilla applicable to the instant case. Moreover, her affidavit in support of her motion to suppress is full of high-sounding legal conclusions, such as \u201cthe stop of my motor vehicle was made without reasonable suspicion or probable cause\u201d and \u201cI was questioned in a custodial setting,\u201d but is devoid of any detailed factual basis to support those conclusions. Ortiz does allege that she \u201cdid not voluntarily consent to [a] search of my vehicle,\u201d but, consistent with the rest of her affidavit, she fails to submit a credible alternative narrative of events and makes no offer of proof that might support her allegation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The vehicle was stopped for not being registered, and the inventory thereafter was valid because it couldn\u2019t be driven away. United States v. Glover<\/a>, 441 Fed. Appx. 748 (11th Cir. 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading