OH2: SI was valid without even considering scope of Gant

Defendant was stopped for a window tint violation, and he had no ID. When a computer check was run, three arrest warrants were found for him. So, a search incident of the car was valid [without a word as to whether the search incident was otherwise justified under Gant]. State v. Wynn, 2011 Ohio 1441, 2011 Ohio App. LEXIS 1239 (2d Dist. March 25, 2011).* [Note: This is an example of pre-Gant thinking still carrying over from those who still don’t get it. And, Gant is two years old April 21st. I have a case here where the Arkansas Court of Appeals held that the defendant was in “the vicinity” for the search incident doctrine when he was at least 75′ away from the car, but the Arkansas Supreme Court has agreed to review it. Still waiting.]

Plaintiff’s claim that he was unnecessarily thrown around and slammed into a wall during an arrest for criminal contempt for FTA stated enough of a claim to overcome qualified immunity, so the case will have to go to trial. Ansell v. Ross Twp, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS (3d Cir. March 25, 2011) (unpublished).*

Defendant and two others were pacing in a neighborhood in a suspicious manner. An officer approached to ask questions and for ID, which was not a seizure. When he decided to pat them down, defendant bolted as soon as he was touched. This was reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing when he was finally seized. United States v. Elmore, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31461 (S.D. Ga. March 18, 2011).*

The record supports the trial court’s conclusion that the defendant consented to a complete search of the house including e-mails. Commonwealth v. Walorz, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 132, 944 N.E.2d 1061 (2011),* review denied 460 Mass. 1103, 949 N.E.2d 924 (2011).