NE: Because of direct evidence def was involved in crime, computer search history was harmless error, if error at all

Defendant challenged the search for lack of probable cause of the search history of his computer that produced evidence he searched for violent pornographic videos that matched how the victim was killed. There was direct evidence he was involved in the murder, DNA put him there, and he made a jail house confession. “Finally, in addition to the physical evidence and the confession, there was considerable circumstantial evidence establishing Kidder had both the motive and the opportunity to commit the crimes.” This was harmless error if error at all. State v. Kidder, 299 Neb. 232, 2018 Neb. LEXIS 42 (Mar. 10, 2018).* [Besides: Between the "soft standard" of probable cause and the good faith exception, lack of probable cause isn't an issue one can ever expect to prevail on. People do, but hardly ever.]

Defendant framed the issue that the drug dog alerted inside his car, but there was evidence that the dog alerted outside first. Crediting that finding, the car was searched with probable cause, and the court does not have to consider the entry into the car. Harbaugh v. State, 2018 Ind. App. LEXIS 91 (Mar. 10, 2018).*

This entry was posted in Dog sniff, Standards of review. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.