D.Minn.: Def didn’t show prejudice or unreasonableness from execution of SW before 6 am

Even if the search warrant was executed here before 6 a.m., defendant doesn’t show any prejudice by that. A cell phone is not exigency in itself, but here there was at least some risk of destruction of evidence because defendant knew he was probation prohibited from possessing anything that could access the internet. The officers also had information that he’d accessed the internet though the phone. United States v. Sherman, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62099 (D. Minn. Apr. 10, 2023).

Plaintiff’s arrest for even a minor offense that happens in the officer’s presence is reasonable. Alburg v. Jones, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 8299 (3d Cir. Apr. 7, 2023).*

Defendant’s arrest for a felony was with probable cause. State v. McCurty, 2023-Ohio-1158, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 1116 (2d Dist. Apr. 7, 2023).*

The legality of a protective sweep of defendant’s car for a weapon was a moot point. The vehicle was subject to impoundment and it was lawfully inventoried. Everything found was subject to inevitable discovery. State v. Nixon, 2023-Ohio-1160, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 1121 (2d Dist. Apr. 7, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Inventory, Nighttime search, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.