OR: Direction to defendant to stand in a particular place showed he was not free to leave

Defendant was stopped and the officer told the defendant to stand in a particular place while the information was run. That was a seizure. He was on probation, and he believed he was being investigated. State v. Zaccone, 234 Ore. App. 267, 227 P.3d 215 (2010).*

Defendant was subjected to a pre-Gant search incident that violated Gant. The state concedes error, and the case is remanded [even though the defendant did not challenge the search]. State v. Burnett, 154 Wn. App. 650, 228 P.3d 39 (2010).* That same day, the same court held that a search claim was waived by not filing a motion to suppress. State v. Nyegaard, 154 Wn. App. 641, 226 P.3d 783 (2010).*

When defendant was talking to the officer, his wallet was open in his hand. The officer asked to look in the wallet, and defendant consented to it. State v. Smith, 154 Wn. App. 695, 226 P.3d 195 (2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.