Daily Archives: December 27, 2016

D.V.I.: Telephonic warrant requirements were complied with and GFE didn’t apply

The telephonic search warrant here failed the requirements of Rule 41, including the verbatim reading of the warrant to the issuing judge, and didn’t mention that they also wanted to search a car that was omitted from the warrant. The … Continue reading

Posted in F.R.Crim.P. 41, Good faith exception, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on D.V.I.: Telephonic warrant requirements were complied with and GFE didn’t apply

DE: CI reported arrest warrant for def so he was arrested; no warrant, however, so search incident was invalid

A CI told the police that defendant had a warrant for his arrest. Without checking, the police arrested. There was no warrant, and the search incident to arrest is void. State v. Rodriguez, 2016 Del. Super. LEXIS 642 (Dec. 21, … Continue reading

Posted in Abandonment, Arrest or entry on arrest, Emergency / exigency | Comments Off on DE: CI reported arrest warrant for def so he was arrested; no warrant, however, so search incident was invalid

CA3: An apparent burglar has no REP or standing to challenge entry

“Martin testified that Lewis did not have a key to her home and did not have permission to be at her residence at the time of arrest. Because she did not leave Lewis in her home when she left, she … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable expectation of privacy, Standing | Comments Off on CA3: An apparent burglar has no REP or standing to challenge entry

CA8: Visitor at apt complex can’t claim standing in parking lot as alleged curtilage

Defendant didn’t have standing to claim that police entry into an apartment building’s parking lot was entry onto the curtilage because he didn’t live there. [It’s not curtilage anyway.] A cousin did, and he was an occasional visitor. Officers shining … Continue reading

Posted in Curtilage, Qualified immunity, Standing | Comments Off on CA8: Visitor at apt complex can’t claim standing in parking lot as alleged curtilage

WA following McNeely holds that there is no per se exigency and refusal to take a breath test is admissible on question of guilt

Applying McNeely: “The district courts correctly rejected the State’s argument that alcohol dissipation constitutes exigency per se—exigency must be determined under the totality of circumstances, case by case. We hold that the implied consent statute does not authorize a warrantless … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing | Comments Off on WA following McNeely holds that there is no per se exigency and refusal to take a breath test is admissible on question of guilt