TX7: Taking witness on defendant’s premises for ID here violated Fourth Amendment, but harmless

The witness to an accident was taken to defendant’s premises to take a look at him, and the witness ID’d him. While the entry onto the curtilage to make the view violated the Fourth Amendment, it was harmless. In addition, the court would not suppress the identification because the witness’s identification in court was shown to be from independent recollection. Tijerina v. State, 334 S.W.3d 825 (Tex. App. — Amarillo 2011).

“All persons” search warrant for a suspected meth lab in an automobile repair garage was reasonable and with probable cause. State v. Hash, 2011 Ohio 859, 2011 Ohio App. LEXIS 765 (9th Dist. February 28, 2011).*

When defendant spotted the officers as their patrol car passed, defendant’s eyes widened, and his jaw dropped. He immediately thereafter reached to the vehicle’s floorboards. The officers testified that, based upon their previous experience, defendant’s actions were unusual and raised safety concerns because actions of that type suggested that defendant could be trying to retrieve a weapon or hide a weapon or other contraband. Defendant’s actions were sufficiently suspicious to justify an investigative stop, and the controlled substances found during that stop were properly admitted into evidence. (Lexis overview) State v. Waldrup, 331 S.W.3d 668 (Mo. 2011).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.