ND: State can’t justify exigent circumstances; suppressed

The state could not justify exigent circumstances in this case. Even the officer’s own testimony admittedly didn’t support it. State v. Stewart, 2014 ND 165, 2014 N.D. LEXIS 167 (July 31, 2014).*

While consent of search of rooms of a commonly used property are limited to the authority over the rooms, the defendant here was hiding in a closet in a room that he couldn’t exclude anybody from. State v. Gatlin, 2014 ND 162, 2014 N.D. LEXIS 168 (July 31, 2014).*

After a judge makes a ruling on a motion to suppress and another judge signs off on the order, it is not procedural error for the second judge to sign, if those were the findings. State v. Ward, 2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1871 (July 29, 2014).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Emergency / exigency. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.