S.D.Tex.: Shots fired call justified a protective sweep

Police received a shots fired call and came to defendant’s property, and could ID him as the source. They thus had authority to conduct a protective sweep of the premises for possible victims, which defendant conceded at the hearing. United States v. Martinez, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88407 (S.D. Tex. September 25, 2009).*

Defendant was stopped for a seat belt violation, and the smell of marijuana wafted from the car. The officer asked why he could smell marijuana, and the defendant handed him a joint. The officer asked if there was more in the car, and the defendant said that there was at his house, which he then consented to. United States v. Thomas, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88618 (W.D. Tenn. July 20, 2009).*

Seizure of pornographic magazines in a sex assault case were proper and within the scope of the search warrant. Rasmussen v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 586, 2009 Ark. App. LEXIS 731 (September 16, 2009):

The affidavit stated that appellant likely possessed items used to arouse and entice children, including sexually-oriented photographs, videos, and magazines depicting adults and children. The covers of the magazines in question were replete with references to depictions of “young girls” and “teens,” bore photographs of nude girls or young women in suggestive poses, and were found in a location within the reasonable scope of the search for the items expressly specified in the affidavit. Considering the totality of the circumstances, we think that the pornographic magazines seized from appellant’s home were within the scope of the search authorized by the warrant. In any event, under Ark. R. Crim. P. 13.3(d), if the officer prosecuting the search discovers things not specified in the warrant that he reasonably believes to be subject to seizure, he may also take possession of things so discovered. George v. State, supra.

Officer who observed a convenience store patron apparently drunk could stop the motorist on reasonable suspicion of DUI when the patron left and drove off. State v. Hessel, 2009 Ohio 4935, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 4175 (12th Dist. September 21, 2009).*

Police had PC for defendant’s stop in his car. He had been under investigation for 8 months, they had 106 recorded conversations, and they knew he would have drugs in his car. People v. Stroud, 392 Ill. App. 3d 776, 911 N.E.2d 1152, 331 Ill. Dec. 922 (2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.