Daily Archives: August 28, 2017

CA1: There was no “doorway arrest” under Santana when ptf was behind a locked door the entire time

Police entered plaintiff’s house without a warrant to arrest him. An hour had passed, and any exigency was long gone. As for whether this could be a “doorway arrest” under Santana, that too is rejected because plaintiff was behind a … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Emergency / exigency, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA1: There was no “doorway arrest” under Santana when ptf was behind a locked door the entire time

OR: Under automobile exception, exigency for stop may dissipate as to one thing yet arise as to another

“[T]he automobile exception continues to supply the per se exigency necessary to conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle that was mobile when stopped so long as the officer has probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, F.R.Crim.P. 41 | Comments Off on OR: Under automobile exception, exigency for stop may dissipate as to one thing yet arise as to another

OH5: SW needed to obtain blood results from hospital’s blood draw

Defendant’s blood draw in the hospital was for medical purposes, and a search warrant was required to get access to that information. Trial court affirmed. State v. Saunders, 2017-Ohio-7348, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 3640 (5th Dist. Aug. 23, 2017). Playpen … Continue reading

Posted in Attenuation, Drug or alcohol testing | Comments Off on OH5: SW needed to obtain blood results from hospital’s blood draw

N.D.Ind.: Following Strieff, no matter the justification for def’s arrest, three FTA warrants justified search incident

Defendant was suspected of attempting a burglary by removing a screen when he fled. He refused to stop and officers finally caught up with him. Instead of submitted, he reached for his pants, and a frisk produced a gun. It … Continue reading

Posted in Independent source, Reasonableness | Comments Off on N.D.Ind.: Following Strieff, no matter the justification for def’s arrest, three FTA warrants justified search incident

ID: Distinguishing Strieff, when it was obvious the person stopped was not the person the police were looking for, running warrants was unnecessary and continued the stop

Distinguishing Strieff, when it was obvious the person stopped was not the person the police were looking for, running warrants on them was unnecessary and continued the stop. State v. Cohagan, 2017 Ida. LEXIS 250 (Aug. 24, 2017)

Posted in Attenuation | Comments Off on ID: Distinguishing Strieff, when it was obvious the person stopped was not the person the police were looking for, running warrants was unnecessary and continued the stop

OH2: Officer didn’t delay the stop for drug dog; it arrived two minutes into the stop [and effectively coerced consent]

While the stopping officer was running background checks, a second officer with a drug dog arrived, and the first officer asked for consent to search, planning to use the drug dog if consent was denied. The trial court held that … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on OH2: Officer didn’t delay the stop for drug dog; it arrived two minutes into the stop [and effectively coerced consent]