WI: Failure to respond to City’s letter to inspect rat-infested property was implied consent

The city wrote by certified mail to the owner of rat-infested property apparently abandoned since he hadn’t come from home in California since before Covid. State law allows inspections if requested and permitted. The owner never responded. His Fourth Amendment rights weren’t violated by the entry to determine whether the building should be torn down or ordered repaired. City of New Lisbon v. Muller, 2023 Wisc. App. LEXIS 1150 (Nov. 2, 2023).

Defendant claims in his 2255 that he believed at the time he pled that evidence in a trash pull was planted by the police. He didn’t challenge the factual basis for the plea and it fails now. LeSane v. United States, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195663 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 31, 2023).*

Once again in this state, the fact a drug dog can’t distinguish between legal hemp and marijuana isn’t a basis to suppress. State v. Major, 2023 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 441 (Oct. 31, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Administrative search, Consent, Dog sniff. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.