CA9: Parolee’s absconding did not bar police from searching his residence

Police had probable cause to believe that the premises searched belonged to the parolee. His absconding did not prevent the police from searching the premises the police believed was his. United States v. Flores, 288 Fed. Appx. 365 (9th Cir. 2008) (unpublished):

The police’s cumulative observations and investigations established probable cause to believe that Flores lived at the Lerma Road residence. Even though Flores had legally “absconded,” this did not necessarily mean that he had actually ceased to reside at the Lerma Road residence. Flores’ contention that the police should have asked him or someone else present whether Flores still lived at the Lerma Road residence is without merit. See Motley, 432 F.3d at 1082 (explaining that statements made by an interested source seeking to prevent arrest by the police are of little value to the probable cause inquiry).

Police had cause to stop the defendant based on a report that he had violated an order of protection. When they approached him, they saw a pistol grip and a shotgun under his coveralls. The stop was reasonable. United States v. Goodlett, 287 Fed. Appx. 699 (10th Cir. 2008) (unpublished).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.