CA11: Plain view supported SW; protective sweep essentially moot

Defendant’s arrest in a motel room resulted in a plain view of a distinctive sneaker that was probably worn in a robbery. That supported a search warrant. Defendant’s protective sweep argument wasn’t timely raised, but it would lose anyway because there were more than one person involved in the robbery. United States v. Rivera, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 27910 (11th Cir. Sept. 2, 2020).*

“Here, we conclude that factual findings are necessary to determine whether the prosecution met its burden to establish that there was clear and convincing evidence that the data retrieved from Rosa’s Phone would have been inevitably discovered. Thus, this case must be remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the evidence obtained from Rosa’s Phone should have been suppressed.” State v. Rosa, 2020 Haw. App. LEXIS 312 (Aug. 31, 2020).*

The CI was reliable because of past information that proved true, self-incrimination, and personal observation of defendant’s activities. United States v. Spradling, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159079 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 1, 2020).*

This entry was posted in Plain view, feel, smell, Protective sweep. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.