WA: Littering arrest justified SI

A motion to strike is not the proper method of challenging admission of evidence that should be the subject of a motion to suppress. Arrington v. Commonwealth, 53 Va. App. 635, 674 S.E.2d 554 (2009).

An officer in an unmarked car was tailing the defendant for suspicion of meth trafficking. When the defendant crossed the center line, he was stopped for the traffic offense, and he validly consented. Sapp v. State, 297 Ga. App. 218, 676 S.E.2d 867 (2009).*

Littering arrest justified a search incident, and meth was found. State v. Kirwin, 165 Wn.2d 818, 203 P.3d 1044 (2009), with concurrence and dissent.*

Obtaining telephone information is not a Fourth Amendment search. Discovery of a witness by gathering the telephone information was also subject to inevitable discovery [not to mention attenuation which is not applied to witnesses]. Fraise v. State, 17 So. 3d 160 (Miss. App. 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.