IA: Smell of MJ smoke 6 days earlier wasn’t stale here

“[W]e conclude that although this was an isolated event and the evidence sought was easily removable, the passage of six days was not significant enough to render the warrant stale.” State v. Euchner, 2022 Iowa App. LEXIS 590 (Aug. 3, 2022).*

Defendant consented to a protective sweep. United States v. Villot-Santiago, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137631 (D. Mass. Aug. 3, 2022).*

“In this case, Howard’s actions did not evidence an actual expectation of privacy. After his rented vehicle was disabled during the high-speed chase with law enforcement, Howard exited the vehicle and fled on foot” leaving behind his stuff. That was abandonment. United States v. Howard, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137776 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 3, 2022).*

“An officer in Parr’s position could reasonably believe that Acuna’s failure to signal was a violation of K.S.A. 8-1548. Even if, as Defendants contend, that belief was mistaken under Kansas law, the court concludes the belief was objectively reasonable. As such, the stop of the vehicle was supported by reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation and was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Gastelum, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138235 (D. Kan. Aug. 3, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Abandonment, Protective sweep, Reasonableness, Staleness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.