WI: Burning mj in a house is exigency of evidence being destroyed by burning

The smell of burning marijuana is exigent circumstances because the contraband is being destroyed by burning. State v. B.W.R., 2021 Wisc. App. LEXIS 201 (Apr. 28, 2021) (unpublished).

Under Birchfield, “An increased penalty for the warrantless blood draw refusal revocation is an increased penalty-regardless whether it takes place in the same proceeding or a later proceeding, it impermissibly burdens or penalizes a defendant’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable warrantless search.” State v. Forrett, 2021 Wisc. App. LEXIS 202 (Apr. 28, 2021).

Defendant’s proffer of a potential Franks violation was enough to get him a hearing. The issue was whether the place named to be searched was his “primary” residence, but it was one of five and that was a critical fact. United States v. Nelson, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80838 (D. Minn. Apr. 28, 2021).*

The collective knowledge of the totality of reasonable suspicion justified defendant’s stop as a walking suspicious person. United States v. Critchfield, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80878 (N.D. W.Va. Apr. 28, 2021).*

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging defendant’s search either under the automobile exception or inventory. Hernandez v. United States, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80803 (D. Idaho Apr. 23, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Collective knowledge, Drug or alcohol testing, Emergency / exigency, Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.