W.D.Mo.: Probation search not governed by Gant

A probation search was not governed by Gant. United States v. Lee, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104590 (W.D. Mo. November 10, 2009).

Defendant’s stop was based on a traffic violation, and the meth lab ingredients in his car were in plain view. State v. Gibson, 152 Wn. App. 945, 219 P.3d 964 (2009).*

There is no claim for a prison cell search. Tindell v. Beard, 351 Fed. Appx. 591 (3d Cir. 2009) (unpublished).*

The fact a fact was missing from an affidavit for SW does not make it false for Franks purposes. Here, it was omission of a reference to ammunition in a felon in possession case, which was not a violation of state law being investigated by state officers, and relevance to the state officers was the explanation for the missing fact. United States v. Wilson, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104392 (D. Nev. September 29, 2009).*

A Miranda warning is not required before consent is sought. Arrington v. State, 286 Ga. 335, 687 S.E.2d 438 (2009).*

Defendant’s patdown, assumed to be lawful, did not permit plain feel of a single pill found in his pocket. The other person in the car had marijuana on him. In re C.C., 2009 VT 108, 186 Vt. 474, 987 A.2d 1000 (2009).

Anonymous caller was corroborated by a controlled buy and a lot of independent police work. United States v. Webster, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105321 (C.D. Ill. November 10, 2009)* (not even close).