TN: Hot pursut to the threshold permitted recovery of drugs tossed inside

Hot pursuit was similar to that in Santana. The defendant got to the threshold, where he was detained and he threw a baggie of cocaine inside. The officer could retrieve it. State v. Allen, 2009 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 799 (September 23, 2009).*

“[T]he Defendant appeals the trial court’s conclusion that the checkpoint did not unreasonably intrude upon his constitutional right to privacy, arguing (1) the advance publicity of the checkpoint was inadequate; (2) the checkpoint lacked a basis in a statistical study establishing the need for DUI deterrence at the checkpoint’s location; and (3) the checkpoint inadequately limited supervising officer Sergeant Bay’s discretion in implementing the checkpoint. We address each of the Defendant’s contentions below,” and the prosecution satisfied each requirement. State v. Muncie, 2009 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 811 (September 23, 2009).*

Defendant’s stop was based on a seat belt violation, but ICE had information on defendant from the year before that made PC to search the car for drugs from a plane that flew into the U.S. United States v. Alvarez, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87995 (D. N.J. September 23, 2009) (Well, if they had PC to search the car, why did they have to use the seat belt violation for the stop?)*

Similarly, the stop here was based on PC for a traffic offense, but there was PC for a felony, too. United States v. Stilling, 346 Fed. Appx. 458 (11th Cir. 2009) (unpublished):

Furthermore, the district court’s application of the inevitable discovery doctrine falls squarely within this Circuit’s jurisprudence. As in Jefferson, the police had information that caused them to focus their attention on Stilling even before the stop. See Jefferson, 382 F.3d at 1296. Moreover, and assuming the stop by Deputy Ortiz had not occurred, Deputy Lajic was seconds behind Deputy Ortiz in stopping Stilling and would have lawfully stopped him based on the traffic violations Stilling had committed. As Deputy Lajic testified, he was looking for probable cause to stop this particular vehicle, which had been identified as coming from a high drug-trafficking area. Upon a lawful stop of Stilling’s vehicle, Deputy Lajic would have inevitably discovered the cocaine in Stilling’s vehicle. There was a reasonable probability the drugs would have been discovered during Deputy Lajic’s stop, and Deputy Lajic was actively pursuing Stilling prior to Deputy Ortiz’s stop. See Jefferson, 382 F.3d at 1296.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.