KY: SW moots consent argument

Officers entered defendant’s home to secure a firearm and then returned with a search warrant. Defendant’s consent argument is moot. Lundy v. Commonwealth, 2017 Ky. App. LEXIS 22 (Jan. 27, 2017).

The court properly overruled defendant’s motion to suppress a safety patdown that produced $101 in cash. “Here, the officer’s search of petitioner’s person and seizure of the currency were non-intrusive means that were ‘necessary in the circumstances to ensure the suspect … [was] not armed.’ David, 205 W. Va. at 397, 518 S.E.2d at 401.” State v. Fidler, 2017 W. Va. LEXIS 28 (Jan. 27, 2017)* (memorandum) [How currency is seizable in a mere safety search is beyond me since it’s not a weapon. It is, however, admissible if it was the product of a search incident to the arrest because $101 was given defendant by the CI. Right result, wrong reason, but this appears settled in WV.]

Defendants were suspected of being involved in a shooting outside a federal building. One defendant can’t move to suppress the seizure of a gun from the person of a codefendant. Officers following them suspected a gun was transferred between them as they walked away from the scene, and that justified their frisk. United States v. Cabreras-Cañuelas, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182929 (D.P.R. Oct. 3, 2016).*

This entry was posted in Search incident, Standards of review, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.