WA: Safe seized with SW doesn’t need another SW to search it

Defendant’s pro se additional appellate grounds that a safe seized from his house in a murder case with a search warrant needed a separate search warrant to open it is rejected without comment. State v. Walker, 178 Wn. App. 478, 315 P.3d 562 (2013).*

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not moving to suppress a consent search of a car after defendant and his co-defendant were stopped and the car was full of stuff and the police suspected they were involved in a burglary. State v. Weimer, 2013-Ohio-5651, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 5916 (11th Dist. December 23, 2013).*

Defendant lived with his grandmother and she validly consented to a search of the living room, a common area as to the two of them. United States v. Dunn, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 26653 (6th Cir. December 15, 2011)* (yes, just came in, and it’s not on court’s website yet).