UT: While arrest for no insurance violated state law, it was valid under the Fourth Amendment; SI of person valid

Defendant was arrested for driving without insurance, and the arrest violated state law because it was not in the “presence” of the officer. The arrest was valid under the Fourth Amendment, however, under Virginia v. Moore. The search incident of defendant’s person was valid. State v. Harker, 2010 UT 56, 240 P.3d 780, 666 Utah Adv. Rep. 11 (2010).*

Reasonable suspicion found for a dog sniff where defendant had an Arizona driver’s license but the vehicle bore Iowa plates, where: the truck was registered to a third party, neither defendant nor his passenger knew the owner’s name despite being in the middle of an extended journey from Arizona to an unknown location in Iowa, neither could identify their destination other than “Iowa,” defendant never provided evidence that he was authorized to drive the car, and defendant did not know the last name of his passenger. People v. Garcia, 251 P.3d 1152 (Colo. 2010).*

In this child pornography search, officers had a search warrant based on defendant’s computer coming up via IP address as sharing via Limewire. They came to the house in what appears to be a knock and talk and defendant consented to a search of his computer and essentially everything the state needed to know. They then presented him with a search warrant for it. State v. Tremaine, 315 S.W.3d 769 (Mo. App. 2010).*