Category Archives: Scope of search

OR 9/10: four search and seizure cases

Officers had probable cause to believe drugs were in defendant’s car, and that permitted them to search a backpack found within the car. State v. Bennett, 2014 Ore. App. LEXIS 1232 (September 10, 2014). Despite remand, the court reaffirms suppression … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, Scope of search | Comments Off on OR 9/10: four search and seizure cases

W.D.Mich.: Police wandering rural property for an hour was invalid knock and talk

Officers came to defendant’s rural property to do a knock and talk and “lingered” for an hour wandering around. They obviously made a decision to search before they got there, and their actions were that of searching officers and the … Continue reading →

Posted in Scope of search | Comments Off on W.D.Mich.: Police wandering rural property for an hour was invalid knock and talk

M.D.Fla.: A private party’s search of a thumb drive didn’t limit the government’s search when they provided it

A thumb drive was found with child pornography on it by a private party who turned it over to the government. The government wasn’t limited by the scope of the private party’s search as to how deep it could search. … Continue reading →

Posted in Private search, Reasonable suspicion, Scope of search | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: A private party’s search of a thumb drive didn’t limit the government’s search when they provided it

MA: State’s RS argument wasn’t made to trial court, so it can’t be made on appeal

The state’s reasonable suspicion argument that officers were concerned for officer safety at the time of the search was not made in the trial court, so it can’t be made on appeal. Commonwealth v. Jordan, 469 Mass. 134, 12 N.E.3d … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Reasonable suspicion, Scope of search | Comments Off on MA: State’s RS argument wasn’t made to trial court, so it can’t be made on appeal

WI: Passenger’s statement “Got a warrant for that?”, was not objection to driver’s consent to briefcase

Originally posted June 7, 2013, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that a passenger’s statement “Got a warrant for that?”, was not objection to driver’s consent to briefcase. a href=”http://wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=92854″>State v. Wantland, 2013 WI App 36, 346 Wis. 2d 680, … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Scope of search | Comments Off on WI: Passenger’s statement “Got a warrant for that?”, was not objection to driver’s consent to briefcase

WA: Where justified frisk produced a small box that couldn’t have contained a weapon, opening box unreasonable

The frisk of defendant was justified because he’d lied about having a gun on him once before. When the frisk produced a small box that could not have possibly contained a weapon, the search of the box was unjustified. State … Continue reading →

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Scope of search | Comments Off on WA: Where justified frisk produced a small box that couldn’t have contained a weapon, opening box unreasonable

ND: Male driver’s consent doesn’t extend to female passenger’s purse in a car

The driver of the car was male, and he granted consent to search the car. It was unreasonable for the officer to believe that that consent extended to the woman passenger’s purse. State v. Daniels, 2014 ND 124, 2014 N.D. … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Scope of search | Comments Off on ND: Male driver’s consent doesn’t extend to female passenger’s purse in a car

NJ: SW for house didn’t authorize search of car parked 5-6 doors away

Search warrant didn’t authorize search of a car 5-6 houses away from the place being searched under the warrant. State v. Bivins, 2014 N.J. Super. LEXIS 67 (May 13, 2014): In this appeal, we consider whether the scope of the … Continue reading →

Posted in Scope of search, Warrant execution | Comments Off on NJ: SW for house didn’t authorize search of car parked 5-6 doors away

N.D.Idaho: SW application is for evidence to be found, not to implicate a target

In a business records search, the question is probable cause to believe evidence will be found, and it isn’t necessary for the search warrant affidavit to implicate a possible target of the search to be valid. United States v. Suarez, … Continue reading →

Posted in Probable cause, Scope of search, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on N.D.Idaho: SW application is for evidence to be found, not to implicate a target

E.D.N.Y.: Exigent circumstances entry and search has to be limited by the exigency

An exigent circumstances entry and search has to be limited by the exigency, and this one was. (In this case, there was a hearing on a motion to suppress in state court before, and then the case was indicted federally, … Continue reading →

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Scope of search | Comments Off on E.D.N.Y.: Exigent circumstances entry and search has to be limited by the exigency