AL: Randolph‘s comment about removing potential objector to consent is mere dicta

The record did not support that the appellant was removed from the property to prevent him from objecting to somebody else consenting. And, even if there was, the part of Randolph about removing somebody to prevent consent is dicta. Mills v. State, 62 So. 3d 553 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008).*

Defendant’s concession he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises prevented him from challenging seizure of items in plain view. State v. Tarkington, 187 P.3d 94 (Ariz. App. 2008).*

Defendant’s car was used in a shooting, so its impoundment after defendant’s arrest was valid, and so was the inventory. United States v. McCalla, 286 Fed. Appx. 610 (11th Cir. 2008) (unpublished).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.