Clothing could be seized under a search warrant that did not specify it where its evidentiary value was immediately apparent

Probable cause existed to stop and search defendant’s vehicle because police consensual wire surveillance indicated that defendant would be delivering 2 kilograms of cocaine that day. The state showed a necessity for the state overhear order. People v. Stroud, 2008 Ill. App. LEXIS 1183 (November 19, 2008).*

Defendant consented to a search of his person. He was confronted by the victim of a robbery who saw him wearing the victim’s watch. State v. Banks, 999 So. 2d 808 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2008).*

Clothing not named in the search warrant could be seized as plain view under the search warrant because it was apparent it had evidentiary value. State v. Allen, 274 S.W.3d 514 (Mo. App. 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.