There were three people in the car stopped on a long road trip. The driver consented to a search of the car. The trunk had multiple dufflebags. It was unreasonable for the officers to think that they all belonged to the driver, and most didn\u2019t. He couldn\u2019t consent to them, and their search is suppressed. (Also, judicial notice taken of distance between points off Google maps.) United States v. Iraheta, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53283 (W.D. La. March 18, 2013), adopted 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53321 (W.D. La. April 11, 2013).<\/p>\n
\u201cIn this case, while the search warrant describes certain broad categories of items to be searched for and seized, such as \u2018documents related to fraudulent activities; photographs; any other stolen property;\u2019 it also lists two North Carolina crimes: possession of stolen property, and obtaining property by false pretense, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 14-71.1 and 14-100. Thus officers were instructed to look only for items related to those particular crimes.\u201d Thus, it was not overbroad. [Still, however, a lot is left to the discretion of the officer, so the defense has to show that something, anything was seized that should not have been seized. But that\u2019s not enough if just a few things were seized that shouldn\u2019t have been because that won\u2019t lead to suppression of the other stuff properly seized.] United States v. Davis, 939 F. Supp. 2d 535 (E.D. N.C. April 12, 2013), R&R 939 F. Supp. 2d 535 (E.D. N.C. November 16, 2012).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading