OH2: Police responding to report of shot dog who heard an animal had exigency to enter the curtilage

“Based upon the evidence presented, we conclude the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. The search of the home and surrounding premises was reasonable because the officers believed an injured animal was on the premises and in need of aid. Accordingly, the first assignment of error is overruled.” State v. Easter, 2024-Ohio-1389, 2024 Ohio App. LEXIS 1311 (2d Dist. Apr. 12, 2024).

Even though the officer could not tell the difference between the smell of marijuana and hemp, the smell was still probable cause in this state. State v. Bishop, 2024 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 148 (Apr. 11, 2024).*

2255 petitioner doesn’t show that defense counsel was ineffective for not challenging the search of his electronic devices for child pornography because he doesn’t show that he’d prevail in challenging the search. Harris v. United States, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 8896 (6th Cir. Apr. 12, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Curtilage, Emergency / exigency, Ineffective assistance, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.