TX1: Second walk through after exigency ended to photograph interior was not unreasonable

Officers did a protective sweep and walk through of defendant’s premises, and the exigencies ended. The officers made a second entry to photograph the interior, and this was merely documenting what they saw in the walk through. Carmen v. State, 358 S.W.3d 285 (Tex. App.—Houston (1st Dist.) 2011).*

During the stop , the officer learned from another officer that defendant used false identification. Based on the real name, there was reasonable suspicion defendant was armed. United States v. Stoltz, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69828 (D. Minn. June 3, 2011).*

“If we assume, without deciding but for purposes of our analysis here, that a PBT is a ‘search’ pursuant to the Fourth Amendment, and we also assume for the purposes of this argument that appellant’s voluntary consent is required in order for the search to be a valid warrantless search, we believe the evidence in the record supports a finding that appellant voluntarily consented to the PBT. [*P24]” City of Columbus v. Shepherd, 2011 Ohio 3302, 2011 Ohio App. LEXIS 2768 (10th Dist. June 30, 2011).*

The attenuation doctrine of unlawful arrest and a confession is not inconsistent with the Washington Constitution. Here, there was a break and the confession was admissible. State v. Eserjose, 171 Wn. 2d 907 (2011) (dissent).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.