Daily Archives: January 11, 2020

OH8: When police at door ask to come in and the occupant stands back and aside, that implies permission and consent

When defendant opened the door and police were there and asked for admission, stepping back and aside implied consent to enter. Police then did a proper protective sweep of the room. City of Westlake v. Dudas, 2020-Ohio-31, 2020 Ohio App. … Continue reading

Posted in Consent | Comments Off on OH8: When police at door ask to come in and the occupant stands back and aside, that implies permission and consent

CO: After first SW for cell phone was suppressed for Franks violation, second was valid with independent source

Defendant was subjected to two search warrants for his cell phones in possession of the police. A motion to suppress the first search was granted because the officer recklessly included false information that deprived it of probable cause. The police … Continue reading

Posted in Independent source, Reasonable suspicion, Standards of review | Comments Off on CO: After first SW for cell phone was suppressed for Franks violation, second was valid with independent source

D.Haw.: USMJ’s prior civil case involving defendant didn’t make him not “neutral and detached”

The USMJ was involved in a prior qui tam civil case by defendant. Defendant in a later criminal case argues that the USMJ should have been disqualified from considering a search warrant affidavit for her property that led to the … Continue reading

Posted in Abstention, Consent, Neutral and detached magistrate | Comments Off on D.Haw.: USMJ’s prior civil case involving defendant didn’t make him not “neutral and detached”

E.D.Cal.: Using drug dog in the patrol car didn’t prolong the stop

There was a factual basis for the stop, and the drug dog at hand did not prolong the stop. After the alert, defendant then consented to the search of the vehicle. United States v. Navarro, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3062 … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, Ineffective assistance, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on E.D.Cal.: Using drug dog in the patrol car didn’t prolong the stop

NJ: Civil forfeiture answer can’t be used against a criminal defendant under Garrity

A defendant’s answers in a civil forfeiture action cannot be introduced in a parallel criminal proceeding under the authority of Garrity v. New Jersey. Here, however, it proves to be harmless error. State v. Melendez, 2020 N.J. LEXIS 2 (Jan. … Continue reading

Posted in Forfeiture, Privileges | Comments Off on NJ: Civil forfeiture answer can’t be used against a criminal defendant under Garrity