CA1: Def’s answer to book-in as to employment that he was “a drug dealer” was admissible at trial

The CI said defendant had a gun and crack. Surveilling the defendant, officers noticed him reaching for his waistband, indicating he was likely armed. The stop and frisk was based on reasonable suspicion from the surveillance corroborating the gun. At book-in, defendant was “asked … whether he was employed, [and] Sanchez matter-of-factly answered that he was ‘a drug dealer.’” This was not a custodial interrogation designed to elicit an incriminating response. Therefore, the statement was admissible at trial. United States v. Sanchez, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5392 (1st Cir. March 23, 2016).*

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging the search of defendant’s car by the tow company employee, a private search. On direct appeal, the search was not found to be plain error. He thus “fails to demonstrate a reasonable probability of a different outcome at trial had counsel filed the motion.” Garcia-Gaona v. State, 2016 Nev. App. LEXIS 90 (March 16, 2016).*