OH8: Officer was permitted to retrieve shirt from bedroom for arrested defendant, so drug paraphernalia was in plain view

Officers were in defendant’s house with an arrest warrant, and he permitted them to go to a bedroom to get a shirt to go to jail in, and drug paraphernalia were in plain view. State v. Hanson, 2009 Ohio 1243, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 1047 (8th Dist. March 19, 2009) [This is remarkably like Chrisman.].

“The Defendant did not include the DVD of the traffic stop in the record. ‘In the absence of an adequate record on appeal, this court must presume that the trial court’s rulings were supported by sufficient evidence.'” The record supports that a patdown was proper, and baggies of marijuana were found on his person. State v. Brotherton, 2009 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 199 (March 18, 2009).*

The PC for the search warrant was based on a citizen informant and a confidential informant, and there was clearly a substantial basis for issuance of the search warrant. There was also nexus to defendant’s property. United States v. Jefferson, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22324 (E.D. Wis. March 17, 2009)*:

Although the affidavit does not indicate the quantity of crack cocaine observed by the CW, and the amount of controlled substances observed is relevant to the question of whether controlled substances are likely to still be present at the target location, when viewed alongside all other factors set forth in the affidavit, and in light of the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in United States v. Garcia, 528 F.3d 481, 486 (7th Cir. 2008), the court concludes that the absence of the quantity of the controlled substances observed does not lead to a conclusion that there was an absence of probable cause to search the residence.

The defendant was stopped for having too loud a car sound system, and that led to a finding he had an outstanding warrant and an inventory search. The only issue challenged by the defendant is the factual basis for the stop, and the court credits the officers. United States v. Simpson, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22405 (N.D. Ohio January 22, 2009).*

Defendant was properly detained during a knock and announce in his house because of a person hiding in the house. State v. Allen, 2009 Ohio 1280, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 1095 (2d Dist. March 20, 2009):

Given the nature of the dispatch, the delay in responding to his “knock and announce,” Tamlyn’s untruthfulness about Allen’s presence [in the house], and the fact that Allen appeared to be hiding in the bedroom after the officers entered, Detective Mullins reasonably suspected that Allen was engaged in criminal activity when he detained Allen in the bedroom.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.