RI: Protective sweep of dwelling applied to alleged shot animal

Protective sweep here was applied to a report of defendant shooting at his dog. The police first swept the curtilage, saw where he freshly dug a hole and filled it. They were permitted to enter defendant’s house to see whether there was an injured animal or person. A gun found in plain view inside was properly seized. State v. Goulet, 21 A.3d 302 (R.I. 2011). [It was tenuous here that they would find a wounded person, as the court suggests. That was ridiculous. Finding the gun is a better view, but even then, they had no reason to believe at that point the gun wasn’t lawfully possessed.]

When the officer observed the defendant’s vehicle with one Florida license plate mounted on the rear, all he needed to know was whether Florida issued one or two plates. That was a legal question. If the officer did not know the answer, he was not authorized to make the stop anyway. People v. Reyes, 196 Cal. App. 4th 856, 127 Cal. Rptr. 3d 167 (6th Dist. 2011).*

When the officer looked in the window of defendant’s car and saw an apparent bag of drugs, he did not have to know exactly what they were to have probable cause. State v. Brodia, 129 Conn. App. 391, 2011 Conn. App. LEXIS 327 (June 14, 2011).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.