Cal.3d: Asserting Fourth Amendment rights cannot be used against the accused

“The invocation of Fourth Amendment rights cannot be used to show guilt,” but it can be harmless error. People v. Garcia, 171 Cal. App. 4th 1649, 90 Cal. Rptr. 3d 440 (3d Dist. 2009).

It was reasonable to delay the execution of a search warrant for defendant’s premises for safety concerns by waiting until he drove away. He was watched and stopped away from the house, and there was probable cause as to his vehicle, too. Merriel v. State, 7 So. 3d 587 (Fla. App. 1DCA 2009).*

Defendant was stopped for a lane change violation, and the officer could smell both raw and burnt marijuana when the car was stopped. That justified a further detention for a drug dog. Jackson v. State, 295 Ga. App. 427, 671 S.E.2d 902 (2009).*

During a traffic stop, the officer smelled the overpowering smell of cologne. The officer checked the window tint which was too dark. Another officer arrived, and the defendant seemed overly nervous. RS had developed to extend the stop. St. Fleur v. State, 296 Ga. App. 849, 676 S.E.2d 243 (2009).*

The CI did not provide all details, but sufficient details, right down to where in the car the drugs were hidden, and that was sufficient. State v. Holmes, 10 So. 3d 274 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2009):

It is also true that the confidential informant’s tip did not provide every pertinent detail, as was the case in White. For example, the informant omitted mention of where the defendant resided, where in the vehicle the cocaine would be located, and what quantity of cocaine would be found. As the United States Supreme Court noted, a failure to provide every detail is not a fatal error, but it is significant.