PA: Attachment to a warrant can provide particularity

The attachment to a warrant can provide particularity. While one ground to suppress was mostly litigated, it was apparent the other ground wasn’t waived or abandoned. Commonwealth v. Young, 2022 PA Super 220 (Dec. 23, 2022).*

“Here, the record demonstrates that the deputies who conducted the sweep watched an armed known gang member enter Nunez’s house, heard a commotion inside the house, and saw the gang member leave without the weapon. Subsequently, two other gang members left the house, and those two individuals could not confirm to the deputies whether anyone else was in the house. Based on these specific and articulable facts, the deputies had a reasonable belief that there may have been people in the home who had access to at least one firearm and thus posed a threat to the deputies’ safety. [¶] Further, the deputies did not exceed the permissible scope of the protective sweep because they only briefly and cursorily searched the home, including Nunez’s bedroom.” United States v. Nunez, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 35555 (9th Cir. Dec. 23, 2022).*

In a DL suspension proceeding, the fact defendant spun his tires for 3-4 seconds didn’t violate the statute at issue, so there was no reasonable suspicion for his stop. Garner v. Kan. Dep’t of Revenue, 2022 Kan. App. LEXIS 46 (Dec. 23, 2022).*

In a driver’s license suspension proceeding, reasonable suspicion supports the ALJ’s findings the stop was justified. Autery v. Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 9373 (Tex. App. – Beaumont Dec. 22, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Particularity, Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.