CA10: Defendant consented to each step of his searches

Search did not exceed the duration of defendant’s consent because (1) defendant repeatedly consented to the searches; (2) defendant’s consent contained no limitation on the duration of the search; (3) at no time did defendant seek to limit the duration of the search, nor did the officers create the understanding that the search would have been brief; and (4) there was no indication that the officers failed to act with due diligence in conducting the search. A dog also alerted. United States v. Carbajal-Iriarte, 586 F.3d 795 (10th Cir. 2009).*

Officers had an arrest warrant, and that permitted them to enter defendant’s premises to arrest under Payton. Short v. United States, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102269 (E.D. Mo. November 3, 2009).*

Defendant’s stop for not having a driver’s license was justified because the officer knew defendant was without a license. The smell of marijuana coming from the car justified more. United States v. Duque, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102199 (W.D. Okla. November 2, 2009).*

Defendant was reasonably detained as a suspected illegal alien. United States v. Adoni-Pena, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102125 (D. Vt. October 23, 2009).*

Mistake of law about obstructed taillights required suppression of defendant’s stop. United States v. McHugh, 349 Fed. Appx. 824 (4th Cir. 2009) (unpublished).*

The frisk of a juvenile for a weapon was without reasonable suspicion, so the search is suppressed. State v. Anthony L., 2009 N.M. App. LEXIS 185 (October 7, 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.