Massachusetts suppresses for knock-and-announce violation, never citing Hudson

The officers did not have justification for dispensing with knocking and announcing under all the circumstances, and the search was suppressed. [The court did not cite Hudson, effectively rejecting it.] Commonwealth v. Santiago, 70 Mass. App. Ct. 519, 874 N.E.2d 693 (2007).

Deputy sheriff stopped defendant’s boat because the deputy did not see a flotation device. That was a valid stop and led to the officer concluding that defendant was BWI, so the stop was valid. State v. Hussong, 739 N.W.2d 922 (Minn. App. 2007).*

Defendant had no guest standing in a hotel room where he could not show that he was planning on being an overnight guest. United States v. Harris, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77133 (S.D. Ohio October 17, 2007).*

Plaintiff’s DV arrest was with probable cause and qualified immunity. Willette v. City of Waterville, 516 F. Supp. 2d 139 (D. Me. 2007):

Officer Sellar was dispatched to the house because of a report of a mother and daughter fighting and Detective Bonney also responded because of his familiarity with the family, including their history of violent behavior and Ms. Willette’s own emotional challenges. When they arrived at the residence, the officers found Ms. Willette hysterical, her daughter backed up against a wall crying, and the apartment littered with broken glass, a broken phone, and other items. Ms. Willette was agitated and shouting at her daughter, and later, at the officers. Ms. Willette requested that her daughter be arrested.