GA: Consent to search the person does not include the anal cavity

Consent to search the person does not include the anal cavity. The officer had reasonable suspicion to believe defendant had drugs on his person, but he did not find any. State v. Crumpton, 302 Ga. App. 602 (2010).

A search warrant for safes bought at Home Depot with a forged check was valid because the safes were described in the attached affidavit. Also, because the interest in the safes was possessory and not a privacy interest, the exclusionary rule would not be applied. State v. Powell, 306 S.W.3d 761 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).*

Defendant was in a high crime area having just left a nightclub, and the security guard told the officer to “watch him,” making the officer believe that something happened inside the club. The officer saw the defendant go to a car and put something in his waistband. “After being asked by Lt. Kitchen, ‘Hey, man, what is going on?’ Defendant grabbed his waistband area.” That justified the officer pulling his gun. United States v. Baker, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125476 (M.D. Fla. November 21, 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.