CA6: Exigency supported seizure of animals from pet store, but not its records

Animal control officers seized animals and records from a pet store in Chattanooga for lack of water, food, and proper care. The animal seizure was valid and did not violate any clearly established right. The business record seizure, however, could not be justified by plain view or exigent circumstances. United Pet Supply v. City of Chattanooga, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17900 (6th Cir. September 18, 2014).

Defendant’s stop for speeding was reasonable despite the officer’s admission that there was also a possible stop sign violation that he did not consider worth stopping him for and a color discrepancy in the DMV description [which the 9th Cir. already said is pretty thin]. United States v. Campa, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130327 (D. Ariz. August 27, 2014).*

CI’s information coupled with his phone call and text messages setting up a drug deal was probable cause to stop, arrest, and search the vehicle. United States v. Rojas, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130432 (E.D. Tenn. July 31, 2014).*

This entry was posted in Automobile exception, Emergency / exigency, Informant hearsay, Probable cause, Scope of search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.