MO: Small pill container was not noticed by “plain feel”

Patdown of the defendant revealed a small container that was not a weapon. The officer told the defendant to empty his pockets, and it was a small container with drugs inside. The direction to empty his pockets was unreasonable, and it was not revealed by plain feel. State v. Gambow, 306 S.W.3d 163 (Mo. App. 2010).

Defendant’s motion to suppress should have been granted. His explanations about his ownership of the car he was driving were reasonable and there were no facts which justified continuing the stop 20 minutes after the time necessary to write him a ticket. Instead of just any back up, a drug dog arrived, and a dog sniff was conducted. It was unreasonable. Wells v. State, 922 N.E.2d 697 (Ind. App. 2010).*

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress a search warrant that looked for evidence concerning the disappearance of the murder victim. That was particular enough. Other clauses in the warrant tied to it. Hemm v. State, 2010 Iowa App. LEXIS 135 (March 10, 2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.