Alaska holds that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in trash left out for collection under the State Constitution. The court relied on a police dumpster diving case, Smith v. State, 510 P.2d 793 (Alaska 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1086 (1973), for authority. State v. Beltz, 160 P.3d 154 (Alas. App. 2007).*
Ohio court goes straight to good faith exception and does not bother to determine the question of probable cause. Instead, [like a scoring game of darts where the wall counts as well as the target and hitting the wall is good enough to win,] the showing of probable cause is “not so lacking” as to render reliance unreasonable so the good faith exception would save the search in any event. State v. Frankenhoff, 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 2604 (5th Dist. June 1, 2007). (Comment: Anybody who has been reading this blog for more than a few months has seen the rants against courts too lazy to decide probable cause for posterity or even for the officers’ edification. This court can now be included as one of the lazy ones.)
On review of a USMJ’s R&R, the court finds that there was overwhelming probable cause for the search warrant and states that the defense misstated the evidence. United States v. Sprague, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41303 (E.D. Tenn. June 6, 2007).*
Plaintiff, a frequent courthouse visitor for disorderly conduct charges, was removed from a NYC courtroom because of a bulge in his sock, and officers thought he might have a weapon or a recording device. Plaintiff claimed he was slammed into a wall while being searched. While “not every push or shove” is unreasonable, fact questions remained on whether excessive force was used on him. Lederman v. Giuliani, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41490 (S.D. N.Y. June 4, 2007).*
Defendant consented to extension of the traffic stop for a drug dog. “The testimony of Officer Bradish revealed that although he made no specific request to do so, Mr. Davis encouraged Officer Bradish to ‘go ahead and use your dog’ well within the time limits of the traffic stop. Consequently, Mr. Davis consented to an extension of the traffic stop for the canine sniff before the purposes of the stop had been completed. Therefore, the canine alert and subsequent search were lawful.” Davis v. State, 2007 Ark. App. LEXIS 436 (June 6, 2007).*
Defendant’s vehicle was impounded after he came to his ex-wife’s apartment and got into an altercation. They impounded the vehicle essentially to deny him transportation to come back. That was sufficient “other good cause” under the Arkansas rule for impoundment of a vehicle which led to an inventory finding crack. Pittman v. State, 2007 Ark. App. LEXIS 434 (June 6, 2007) (4-2).*
Defendant passenger in a car owned by another, which he claimed, but failed to prove, he otherwise had access to as a driver by the owner, had no standing to challenge a search of the trunk. Campos v. State, 867 N.E.2d 76 (Ind. App. 2007).*
A custodial arrest for a misdemeanor traffic violation supports a search incident. State v. McKiry, 2007 Ohio 2762, 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 2555 (8th Dist. June 7, 2007).
