IN: Co-defendant’s prevailing in a suppression motion did not help defendant where there was no record provided to show that the issues were the same

Nonmutual collateral estoppel did not apply to defendant’s case where his co-defendant won a motion to suppress after defendant’s was denied. Because of a lack of record or findings of fact and conclusions of law from the other proceeding, nonmutual collateral estoppel apply to defendant motion. Perez-Grahovac v. State, 894 N.E.2d 578 (Ind. App. 2008).*

Defendant’s answers to basic questions during his traffic stop gave the officer reasonable suspicion for a further detention. People v. McCarley, 2008 NY Slip Op 7455, 55 A.D.3d 1396, 865 N.Y.S.2d 459 (4th Dept. 2008).*

Defendant who stayed some at the place searched and actually got some mail there had an expectation of privacy in the premises. Commonwealth v. Bostick, 2008 PA Super 233, 958 A.2d 543 (2008):

Appellant was more than a casual visitor to 3018 N. 8th Street and had an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy there. At the suppression hearing, Appellant’s attorney presented the testimony of Darlene Cooper, the woman who was arrested in the house. N.T. Hearing at 13. Ms. Cooper testified that she leased the property at 3018 N. 18th Street. Id. at 14-15. She indicated that Appellant stayed there “[s]ometimes, not regularly, he came through and spend [sic] the night sometimes.” Id. at 15. Her testimony continued as follows:

[Appellant’s counsel]: Did [Appellant] ever have mail sent to that particular residence?

[Ms. Cooper]: Yes.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.