Open container justifies further search for open containers

Open beer can in a Kansas traffic stop led two officers to conduct a search for other open containers, and that led to a search of a Crown Royal bag in the backseat [and just how would an open container be in the bag if it was not apparent that a bottle of Crown Royal was in it?] which produced drug paraphernalia. That gave PC for a further search of the vehicle which produced meth. Defendant’s life sentence affirmed. United States v. Howton, 260 Fed. Appx. 813, 2008 FED App. 0058N (6th Cir. 2008) (unpublished).*

M.R.E. 317(a) on electronic surveillance in the Armed Forces does not incorporate state law on one party consent to a recording. So, a recording that may have violated Hawai’i law was not barred in a court martial. United States v. Toy, 65 M.J. 405 (CA AF 2008).*

Even taking defendant’s investigator’s affidavit as true, insufficient information was provided to require a Franks hearing. United States v. Pantojas, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95858 (D. P.R. October 3, 2007).*

Arrest for disorderly conduct for excessive noise under Alaska law requires that the officer warn the defendant to stop and then for the defendant to continue. Thus, the arrest here was without probable cause. Tuttle v. State, 175 P.3d 60 (Alas. App. 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.