FL4: Consent to search for weapons and drugs would not be commonly understood to mean a search of a wallet in the pocket

“The ‘typical, reasonable person’ would have understood his agreement to a search for weapons and drugs to constitute just that: a search for weapons and drugs, not an open invitation to remove all of the contents from one’s wallet.” A.L.T. v. State, 63 So. 3d 855 (Fla. App. 4th DCA 2011).

Defendant’s stop as a suspected burglar was valid. He was coming from between houses at night with a flashlight in hand and altered his course to seek to evade the officer. The patfrisk was invalid, but meaningless since nothing was used as evidence. Commonwealth v. Nickerson, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 642, 948 N.E.2d 906 (2011).*

Defendant’s IAC claim for not presenting a search issue was not well enough developed to be considered on appeal because of an incomplete record. Since the conviction was reversed on other grounds, he gets another shot at the search issue anyway. State v. Walters, 162 Wn. App. 74, 255 P.3d 835 (2011).*

The defendant wasn’t present to consent or object. His mother had mutual use and could consent. State v. Lathan, 2011 WI App 104, 335 Wis. 2d 234, 801 N.W.2d 772 (2011).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.