Strip search of an arrestee on a business’s parking lot was unreasonable

A police officers’ search of an arrestee is unreasonable when the officers conduct a highly intrusive strip search in the parking lot of a public business in the presence of others and there were no exigent circumstances requiring an immediate search. Paulino v. State, 399 Md. 341, 924 A.2d 308 (2007).

Photographs taken during the search of a home by a police officer who entered and searched the home under the emergency-aid exception to the warrant requirement are inadmissible under the emergency-aid exception to the warrant requirement if taking the photographs was not related to the purpose for which the officer entered the home. In re The Welfare of J.W.L., 732 N.W.2d 332 (Minn. App. 2007).

Because an ineffective assistance claim on a Fourth Amendment claim would fail as a matter of law, post-conviction relief on that ground would be denied. Correa v. Comm’r of Corr., 101 Conn. App. 554, 922 A.2d 289 (2007).*

Furtive gesture in a car justified officer reaching where the person reached. State v. Weidner, 2007 NMCA 63, 141 N.M. 582, 158 P.3d 1025 (2007):

The State argues that in the present case, exigent circumstances existed justifying the seizure of the methamphetamine, given that Defendant was still in the vehicle, which could have been driven away, and that he could easily access the methamphetamine, which was within arm’s reach. We find this argument persuasive. The exigency in the present case is stronger than it was in Garcia or Gomez, because in this case Defendant was still behind the steering wheel and within arm’s reach of the methamphetamine. Defendant even attempted to conceal the methamphetamine by quickly flipping up the visor. Officer Ahlm testified that he did not believe it would be prudent to tell the other officer about the methamphetamine, as opposed, it appears, to immediately seizing it himself, because Defendant was still sitting behind the steering wheel of the vehicle. The officer was relying on more than just the inherent mobility of the vehicle in acting to seize the contraband. He was also relying on the fact that Defendant was in a position to operate the vehicle, and thereby evade the officers and remove or destroy the evidence. While the inherent mobility of the vehicle itself, alone, did not give rise to the exigency in this case, the fact that Defendant was still sitting behind the wheel of the vehicle supports the existence of the requisite exigency. See Gomez, 1997 NMSC 6, P 44 (noting that in most cases involving an automobile there may be an exigency, but requiring a case-by-case analysis of whether the exigency exists).

The fact the police surrounded a car did not make it “immobile” such that the automobile exception would not apply. State v. Willard, 374 S.C. 130, 647 S.E.2d 252 (2007):

Willard argues because the officers surrounded his vehicle, it was not “mobile” under Carney. However, temporary immobility may still be considered readily mobile so as to qualify for the automobile exception. See Myers v. State, 839 N.E.2d 1146, 1152 (Ind. 2005) (cases cited therein).