TN: Consenter had apparent authority over two buildings, not just one

Officers looking for a fugitive were on the “Johnson properties.” It was common knowledge in the community that two houses nearby were the “Johnson property,” and one person’s consent to search the “Johnson properties” reasonably was believed to include both buildings. The officers were lawfully there in the first place. State v. Johnson, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 614 (July 22, 2010).*

In a DUI case, where the officer testified that he wasn’t sure who took the blood sample, and under statute only a physician, qualified technician, chemist, registered professional nurse, or licensed vocational nurse may take a blood specimen at the request or a LEO, it was a credibility determination against the state, and suppression was affirmed. State v. Robinson, 325 S.W.3d 212 (Tex. App. – Waco 2010), Petition for discretionary review granted by State v. Robinson, 2010 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS
1353 (Tex. Crim. App., Oct. 20, 2010).*

The officer spoke to defendant in English, getting no response. So he spoke Spanish and defendant spoke to him. He asked if he could “take a look” and defendant agreed and was found to have consented. State v. Medina, 205 N.C. App. 683, 697 S.E.2d 401 (2010).*

Defendant’s claim that defense counsel was ineffective for not arguing that the search warrant specify the crime under investigation fails. Rule 41(e) does not require that, and it was amended out in 1972. His claim that the warrant have “scrupulous exactitude” comes from First Amendment implicating search warrants, Stanford v. Texas. Hale v. United States, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73604 (N.D. Ill. July 22, 2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.