discussed Cited "see" United States v. Mahan See United States v. Cope, 312 F.3d 757, 777 (6th Cir.2002) (noting that the defendant has the burden of demonstrating that the Government violated the STA), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 871 , 124 S.Ct. 198 , 157 L.Ed.2d 130 (2003); 18 U.S.C. § 3162 (a)(2) (“The defendant shall have the burden of proof of supporting such motion [to dismiss the indictment based on a violation of the STA].”) As an initial matter, a criminal complaint and arrest warrant were issued against Marshall on October 18, 2004, rather than October 28th, as Marshall asserts.

discussed Cited "see" United States v. Roberts See United States v. Cope, 312 F.3d 757, 775 (6th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 871 , 124 S.Ct. 198 , 157 L.Ed.2d 130 (2003) (noting that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement is applicable even in non-exigent circumstances, as long as the vehicle is mobile and law enforcement officers have probable cause to believe that it contains incriminating evidence).