CA4: A sales receipt found in a search was “indicia of occupancy” under SW

A mall jewelry store was robbed and watches worth $275,000 were stolen. Two men were arrested, and a third got away. Information was later developed on defendant, and a search warrant was obtained for his house which included “indicia of occupancy.” A bag was looked in and it had a cash sales receipt for a Louis Vuitton belt for $461 for the day after the robbery in the name of an alias defendant used. “The fact that the warrant does not explicitly mention receipts is not determinative: ‘law enforcement officers may seize an item pursuant to a warrant even if the warrant does not expressly mention and painstakingly describe it.’” United States v. Dargan, 738 F.3d 643 (4th Cir. 2013).

In the trial court, defendant argued lack of consent. On appeal he argued that the probation officer lacked authority. That’s changing the argument. State v. Howard, 2013-Ohio-5691, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 5951 (5th Dist. December 6, 2013).*

“[A] request for consent to search a container is not itself an interrogation, Detective Cavaletti did not violate the Fifth Amendment when he asked Defendant for consent to search the cameras and the black box.” Further questioning about the box was interrogation. State v. Beasley, 416 S.W.3d 357 (Mo. App. 2013).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.