DE: Probation absconder didn’t have standing in another person’s property; alternatively, probation absconding is exigency

Defendant was a probation absconder, and he did not have standing to contest a search of another probationer’s camper. Even if defendant did have standing, the probation officers substantially complied with departmental guidelines. Defendant’s presence as an absconder from probation attempting to evade police by hiding in the bathroom of a camper was an exigent circumstance. Thus, an arrest checklist for defendant was not required by departmental guidelines and the arrest did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Aiken v. State, 2017 Del. LEXIS 439 (Oct. 23, 2017).

“On appeal, petitioner argues that the stop was illegal because the deputy lacked a reasonable articulable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop. However, this argument simply ignores the evidence below. It is clear from the record below that the deputy did not initially make a traffic stop of petitioner’s vehicle, given that the vehicle in question was already stopped along the side of the road.” A search warrant issued for the vehicle after that. State v. DeFrietas, 2017 W. Va. LEXIS 802 (Oct. 23, 2017) (memorandum).*

This entry was posted in Emergency / exigency, Probation / Parole search, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.