W.D.Ky.: Two fire scene searches were valid, three days apart, because the second was by consent

The first fire scene search of defendant’s house by Army CID was a continuation of the fire department’s entry under Tyler. The second, days later, was with a dog to sniff for accelerants and was by consent of defendant’s wife (after the fact without her knowing of a probably illegal entry). It was not a continuation of the first entry under Clifford, but defendant’s wife did not know of that entry when she consented. An examination of the exterior of defendant’s car outside was reasonable. United States v. Smallwood, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108762 (W.D. Ky. October 12, 2010).*

A court released defendant from supervision, but the Ohio Parole Authority disagreed that a court could. Subsequently, a parole search occurred, and it was still valid as far as the OPA was concerned. United States v. Starnes, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109004 (N.D. Ohio October 13, 2010).*

Under U.S. v. Padilla, defendant had no standing to challenge the constitutionality of the arrest of his co-defendant. United States v. Smith, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108775 (W.D. Tenn. October 12, 2010).*