Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Fourth Amendment

Criminal Law

: Fourth Amendment

D.Conn.: The issue under the automobile exception is ?inherent mobility,? not ?probable mobility?

By John Wesley Hall, Jr.

The issue under the automobile exception is “inherent mobility,” not “probable mobility.” See United States v. Howard, 489 F.3d 484 (2d Cir. 2007), and United States v. Navas, 597 F.3d 492 (2d Cir. 2010). The fact the officers had time to get a warrant was essentially irrelevant. United States v. McKreith, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116134 (D. Conn. March 8, 2010).* The officer’s observing defendant’s hand-to-hand sale from a baggie of apparent crack was reasonable suspicion for a stop. Then the defendant admitted that he had a gun on him. United States v. Baker, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116351 (W.D. Tenn. September 13, 2010).* Defendant’s [lame-ass] excuses for his lawyer’s alleged lack of performance at his suppression hearing were hardly relevant and did not show that he received ineffective assistance...continue to full post

Full post as published by Fourth Amendment on November 05, 2010 (boomark / email).