OH: Opening car door was to secure uncooperative def, not search; plain view valid

Opening the car door was not for the purpose of searching; it was to secure the uncooperative defendant. During the interaction, evidence in plain view was seen and the officer then could enter the car to secure it. State v. Jackson, 2022-Ohio-4365, 2022 Ohio LEXIS 2469 (Dec. 8, 2022).

Defendant had standing to challenge a dog sniff and search of a package he admitted he sent. The sender was listed as “D. McCarley.” It was not as fictitious a name as the government makes it out to be. He had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the package. United States v. McCarley-Connin, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220092 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 1, 2022).

Removal of plaintiff’s child from the home without adequate justification violated the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, the right was clearly established, and the official gets no qualified immunity. McMurry v. Brunner, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 33724 (5th Cir. Dec. 7, 2022).*

Because the automobile exception applies, inevitable discovery does not have to be decided. United States v. Carter, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220613 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 7, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Inevitable discovery, Mail and packages, Plain view, feel, smell, Qualified immunity, Search, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.