TX1: Fire scene search of unprotected property months after fire not unlawful

Months after a fire, arson investigators entered defendant’s property again to try to determine the source of the fire. It was not a criminal investigation yet. Significant here was that defendant hadn’t done anything to secure the premises, contrary to what happened in Clifford. The warrantless second entry was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Tata v. State, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 9138 (Tex. App. – Houston (1st Dist.) August 19, 2014).

Greenpeace sued Dow for industrial espionage for going through its trash out for collection and recycling. There’s no invasion of privacy claim, trespass, or conversion claim stated. Greenpeace, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Co., 2014 D.C. App. LEXIS 307 (August 21, 2014).

The encounter here started completely consensually, and the officer’s statement to “move over here,” while not phrased as a question didn’t change it to a stop. State v. Blankenship, 2014-Ohio-3600, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 3535 (4th Dist. August 14, 2014).*

This entry was posted in Administrative search, Consent, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Stop and frisk, Warrant requirement. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.