TN: Lawful seizure of a videocamera permits viewing tape inside

Defendant conceded that the videocamera was lawfully seized, so defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging the lack of a search warrant to view the videotape inside it. Mayes v. State, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 209 (March 9, 2010).*

Gunshots from a field at night and then seeing the lights of a vehicle come on and depart justified a stop of the car with reasonable suspicion and a search for the weapons. United States v. Guerrero-Heredia, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21823 (D. Ariz. February 24, 2010).*

Arrival of drug dog “soon after” traffic stop that was targeting defendant anyway was not unreasonable. West v. State, 53 So. 3d 990 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010).*

A witness not called at the suppression hearing was called in the PCR hearing, but he couldn’t remember anything, so that didn’t entitle petitioner to relief. The suppression issue was litigated and appealed, and pursued on PCR with a different focus. Adams v. State, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 214 (March 9, 2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.