OH4: When officer couldn’t find source of strong smell of MJ, he could search again under 4A

The officer encountered a strong smell of marijuana and searched the car for it coming up “empty.” He reviewed the video in the car and searched again. This one continuous effort and separate justification wasn’t needed. Suppression order reversed. State v. Farrow, 2023-Ohio-682, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 653 (4th Dist. Mar. 1, 2023).

Considering the totality, defendant was not in custody for Miranda purposes when he made the challenged statement. People v. Willoughby, 2023 CO 10, 2023 Colo. LEXIS 200 (Mar. 6, 2023).*

“Inmates do retain limited protection under the Fourth Amendment from unreasonable strip searches and degrading body cavity searches. … However, Mr. Logan does not allege that the officers strip-searched him or conducted a body cavity search that was unduly degrading. Indeed, there are no allegations from which the court can plausibly infer that the officers touched him, searched his person, or directed him to do anything. As far as the complaint reveals, they simply conducted a search of his cell and moved on. This is not the type of situation that would trigger Fourth Amendment concerns in the correctional context.” Logan v. Schroder, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36641 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 6, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Automobile exception, Custody, Prison and jail searches. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.