TN: Owner of premises could consent to enter room of visitor

Defendant was a suspect in a murder, and police were admitted to the house where he stayed by consent of the owner. He wouldn’t come out of his bedroom, so they went in. The owner had complete control over the premises despite defendant staying there for a while without paying rent. There was no lock on the door nor exclusion of others. State v. Hinerman, 2022 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 202 (May 4, 2022).

“Applying [Rodriguez and other cases] to the facts of this case, the Court finds that the Officers on the scene of the June 4, 2020, traffic stop of the Camry lacked other reasonable, articulable suspicion to extend the traffic stop beyond the moment in time when Officer Rosnau completed the actions necessary within the scope of his initial traffic stop.” United States v. Davis, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80618 (D.Minn. Apr. 15, 2022).*

Plaintiff prison inmate had no reasonable expectation of privacy in being observed in the bathroom on surveillance video potentially by female guards. Simmons v. Ark. Dep’t of Corr., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80623 (E.D.Ark. Apr. 15, 2022),* adopted, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80275 (E.D.Ark. May 3, 2022).*

Conduct during a stop that the occupants of the car wanted to avoid law enforcement contact after an accident and they were known to be people who fled encounters was reasonable suspicion. United States v. Nelson, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79973 (N.D.Iowa May 3, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Prison and jail searches, Reasonable suspicion, Reasonableness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.