U.S. v. VANPATTEN, 5:15cr11/MW. (2015)
Court: District Court, N.D. Florida
Number: infdco20150901856
Visitors: 16
Filed: Aug. 31, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 31, 2015
Summary: ORDER MARK E. WALKER , District Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Suppress, ECF No. 22. A hearing on the matter was held on August 31, 2015. At the hearing, the Court found that (1) Defendant abandoned any reasonable expectation of privacy in the car by fleeing from the car while running away from law enforcement; (2) considering the totality of the circumstances, law enforcement had probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained contraband or evidence of a c
Summary: ORDER MARK E. WALKER , District Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Suppress, ECF No. 22. A hearing on the matter was held on August 31, 2015. At the hearing, the Court found that (1) Defendant abandoned any reasonable expectation of privacy in the car by fleeing from the car while running away from law enforcement; (2) considering the totality of the circumstances, law enforcement had probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained contraband or evidence of a cr..
More
ORDER
MARK E. WALKER, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Suppress, ECF No. 22. A hearing on the matter was held on August 31, 2015.
At the hearing, the Court found that (1) Defendant abandoned any reasonable expectation of privacy in the car by fleeing from the car while running away from law enforcement; (2) considering the totality of the circumstances, law enforcement had probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained contraband or evidence of a crime such that a search was proper under the automobile exception; and (3) the evidence would have been inevitably discovered as a result of the inventory search which properly comported with the established inventory search guidelines of the Bay County Sheriff's Office.
For these reasons and the reasons stated on the record at the hearing,1 Defendant's Motion to Suppress, ECF No. 22, is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Due to scheduling difficulties, the hearing on the motion was not set until immediately before trial.
Source: Leagle
