C.D.Ill.: Calls to wife showed exigency for potential removal of drugs hidden in safe in house

Defendant’s calls to his wife showed there was exigency in the contents of a safe at their house because he wanted it moved immediately. That was exigency. Also, she had apparent authority to consent. United States v. Simmons, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113332 (C.D.Ill. August 26, 2015).*

Defendant’s wife had apparent authority to consent to a search of his backpack in a domestic battery case. The backpack was always with him, or them if they were together, and held a gun, and she knew it. At the time of the search, it was in a vehicle under her control. United States v. Montemayor, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112204 (S.D.Tex. August 25, 2015).*

Defendant’s IAC claim against defense counsel for failing to cite a specific case that is almost factually identical fails because defendant was a parolee, and that’s a big difference on the reasonable expectation of privacy he had. United States v. Sandlain, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112869 (E.D.Mich. August 26, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Apparent authority, Probation / Parole search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.