09-3732 & 09-3755 U.S. v. Nicksion

Listen to this article

Search and Seizure
Automobile exception; collective knowledge

Officers may search an automobile without a warrant although they did not have probable cause, based on the collective knowledge of other officers investigating the suspects.

“Gant explicitly recalled, and did not curtail, the automobile exception to the warrant requirement in United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982). Stotler, 591 F.3d at 940; see also Gant, 129 S. Ct. at 1721. Under that rule, if there is probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity, police may search any area in which the evidence might be found. Gant, 129 S. Ct. at 1721. Thus, unlike the searches described in the final clause of the holding in Gant, ‘Ross allows searches for evidence relevant to offenses other than the offense of arrest, and the scope of the search authorized is broader.’ Id.”
“Here, as we previously discussed, law enforcement had Cubie under constant surveillance on the day of the stop and saw him accept a $5,000 drug payment and engage in other drug transactions. In addition to justifying Cubie’s stop and arrest, this information also provided sufficient reason to believe that the vehicle (and any vessels inside the vehicle) contained at least the buy money and probably other evidence of drug trafficking. The fact that Brosseau and DeValkenaere actually may have relied on other justifications for the search, such as the search-incident-to-arrest exception or Cubie’s purported consent, is irrelevant. See Williams, 2010 WL 4157339, at *6-7. So the denial of Cubie’s motion to suppress stands.”

Affirmed.

09-3732 & 09-3755 U.S. v. Nicksion

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Clevert, J., Evans, J.

Full Text