NC: Officers imposing on defendant that she submit to searches made it all unreasonable

“This case presents the question whether a police encounter with defendant triggered defendant’s Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable seizure. We conclude that a reasonable person in defendant’s position would not have felt free to refuse an officer’s request to search her purse or otherwise terminate the encounter under the totality of circumstances that here included the officer’s initiation of the encounter, his declaration to defendant and her companion that he was investigating drug crimes and prostitution, his call for a backup officer, his persistence when defendant did not respond to his initial efforts to make contact, his request that defendant produce identification, and his requests to defendant that she both exit the vehicle with her purse and allow him to ascertain its contents. Accordingly, we determine that defendant was seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Because the taint of the illegal seizure of defendant had no opportunity to dissipate before the search of her purse, we hold that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress.” State v. Icard, 363 N.C. 303, 677 S.E.2d 822 (2009).*

There is no reason to conduct a search incident for illegal parking. Gant “significantly narrowed” the law of SI, so defendant wins. State v. Thomas, 2009 Ohio 3461, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 2991 (8th Dist. July 16, 2009).

CI’s tip of drug sales from house plus surveillance that showed many people coming and going was PC. State v. Pustelnik, 2009 Ohio 3458, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 2993 (8th Dist. July 16, 2009).*

Officers had RS for stop of defendant’s car based on what appeared to be the defendant shooting up in the car. When that was confirmed, there was PC for arrest, and a SI under Gant was permissible. State v. Gove, 2009 Ohio 3463, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 2990 (8th Dist. July 16, 2009).*

Officers had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant for a dog sniff. State v. Thomas, 2009 Ohio 3520, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 3015 (2d Dist. July 17, 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.