Defendant’s arrest and removal was not shown to avoid his consent

Defendant was removed from the premises on his arrest, and consent was sought from his cotenant. There was no showing that the defendant’s removal was for the purpose of avoiding asking him for consent under Randolph. State v. Ball, 2007 Ohio 5564, 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 4887 (2d Dist. October 12, 2007).*

Federal DWI stop was based on articulable reasonable suspicion. United States v. Caine, 517 F. Supp. 2d 586 (D. Mass. 2007).*

Defendant’s handcuffing and frisk was based on reasonable suspicion and the fact he was on probation. United States v. Jones, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77270 (E.D. Tenn. October 16, 2007).*

Citizen informant told officers at an inland border checkpoint on I-87 in Upstate New York that a vehicle made a U-turn to avoid the checkpoint. Officers found the vehicle on a state highway near the Interstate. It swerved and was stopped for that, and the officer then smelled marijuana. A consent search was mentioned, and the defendant admitted to having marijuana. The search was valid. People v. Boyea, 2007 NY Slip Op 7775, 2007 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10707 (3d Dept. October 18, 2007).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.