GA: Defendant failed to show lack of knowledge of search as a release condition

Defendant had the burden of showing that she was unaware of a condition of her bond that she submit to searches of her property or self, and she didn’t. Curry v. State, 2011 Ga. App. LEXIS 316 (March 30, 2011).* [Note: Not a word about the reasonableness of a search condition as a condition of bond, and, as far as I am concerned, that is a Fourth Amendment impossibility. Parolees and probationers are subject to search conditions because their status as convicts reduces their expectation of privacy. Nowhere near the same argument is available as a condition of bail as a person still presumptively innocent. I’ve seen such search conditions on occasion before, but I objected and it was removed.] [Update: A reader and good friend of mine pointed out what I should have looked up, but was in a hurry this morning: United States v. Scott, 450 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 2006), is the first federal case to reject such pretrial release conditions.]

A soccer team on a road game was the target of angry fans and potential racial violence. The team bus was boxed in by police cars. Consent was sought from the coach who debated making the officers get a warrant, but he decided to “take the high road,” and he consented to a search of the players. Everybody had tough choices to make here, and it cannot be said that the officers acted unreasonably such that they would be denied qualified immunity. “Like Coach Marchand, the police officers faced a tough decision in a difficult situation. Whether the officers made the correct decision is not the point.” Lopera v. Town of Coventry, 640 F.3d 388 (1st Cir. 2011).*

Defendant’s driving justified the stop under Terry. United States v. Brunson, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35410 (D. N.J. March 31, 2011).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.