MD: Drug deal in defendant’s vestibule was in open view and opening glass door was by exigency

Remembering that there is a difference between plain view and open view, the officers saw defendant selling cocaine in the vestibule between a glass door and the front door of his house. When the police approached, they could see the cocaine and defendant stomped on vials of it, missing one. The entry was based on exigent circumstances. It isn’t necessary to decide the curtilage question here. Brewer v. State, 2014 Md. App. LEXIS 129 (October 29, 2014).

Defendant has no standing to complain that his statement was obtained by the alleged violation of another person’s Fourth Amendment rights. Therefore, defense counsel can’t be ineffective for not raising it. People v. Wood, 2014 Mich. App. LEXIS 2078 (October 28, 2014).*

Questions of fact remained in this state § 1983 claim on questions of voluntariness of consent and apparent authority to consent. The claim of qualified immunity is also denied. Lavigne v. Forshee, 2014 Mich. App. LEXIS 2081 (October 28, 2014).*

This entry was posted in Apparent authority, Consent, Plain view, feel, smell, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.