IA: Steagald did not bind state on raising standing on appeal where state made no assertions concerning its position on standing in trial court

Defendant’s movements of his body and hands strongly suggested that he had a gun in his waistband, and that justified a patdown. United States v. Green, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6860 (M.D. Pa. January 30, 2009).*

The court does not have to decide whether there was a knock-and-announce violation, because it does not matter since the exclusionary rule would not apply. Reasonableness of the search, however, was still to be determined. United States v. Gladney, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7032 (C.D. Cal. January 23, 2009):

It was reasonable for the officers to breach the door with their guns drawn, given that Defendant failed to answer the door. There is no testimony in the record that the agents ransacked the apartment, or left it inhabitable. Defendant was left outside until the protective sweep was complete, and then he was permitted to reenter his apartment. Moreover, Defendant has not identified specific conduct that supports his contention that the execution of the search warrant was unreasonable.

State’s failure to challenge standing in the trial court did not involve any assertions of fact or law that the court or defendant relied on, so Steagald does not apply to the state arguing no standing on appeal. State v. Brooks, 760 N.W.2d 197 (Iowa Sup. 2009).

Third-hand hearsay was sufficient for a stop where the initial report was particular and not anonymous. State v. Bishop, 203 P.3d 1203 (Ida. 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.