PA: Search of unconscious shooting victim’s clothing in hospital to ID him was reasonable

Defendant was a shooting victim who had not been identified, and a search of his clothing at the hospital to try to identify him was reasonable. Drugs were found in his pocket. Defendant was a suspect in no crime when this happened. A need existed to see if defendant carried some indication of a medical history and to identify him in order to notify relatives or friends. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 2009 PA Super 41, 2009 Pa. Super. LEXIS 50 (March 11, 2009),*

Police were justified in entering defendant’s curtilage under exigent circumstances that he would leave the premises with drugs. United States v. Torres, 318 Fed. Appx. 547 (9th Cir. 2009) (unpublished):

We also find that exigent circumstances were present to justify the warrantless presence of officers inside the curtilage of Appellant’s home. The evidence obtained from the motel room that Appellant was engaged in drug trafficking, combined with the sudden activity in the residence and the observation of a Jeep leaving Appellant’s garage collectively supported the detectives’ belief that Appellant was preparing to transport methamphetamine and that immediate action was warranted to prevent him from doing so. Det. Seanor ordered the traffic stop of the Jeep shortly before the officers entered the curtilage. In addition, Appellant had previously demonstrated a level of sophistication about surveillance, taking steps to avoid detection by washing out all of the plastic bags in the motel room. Lastly, we note that the officers, while in the curtilage of Appellant’s home, were 20 feet from the backdoor — their presence only there in the event that Appellant sought to escape from the backdoor.

Defendant’s failure to show anything specific that was false in the face of this probable cause showing was not a Franks violation. United States v. Parks, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17707 (M.D. N.C. March 4, 2009).*

Defendant leaving his duffle bag in a tribal comfort station accessible to others showed a lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy or abandonment. United States v. Voice, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17529 (D. S.D. March 6, 2009).*

Defendant was cooperative and made no furtive gestures, so his pat down was not justified under Terry. State v. Chihak, 2009 Iowa App. LEXIS 128 (March 11, 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.