N.D.Ind.: After smelling marijuana at the door, officers entered for a protective sweep, but inevitable discovery supported the warrant

Officers conducted a protective sweep which might or might not have been a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but the inevitable discovery rule justified the search warrant from what officers smelled at the door. “None of the evidence in this case was obtained in violation of the Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights and, to the extent there was a violation, exclusion is not an appropriate remedy.” United States v. Sabo, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75327 (N.D. Ind. July 11, 2011).*

Officers had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant during a domestic dispute to look for a gun, and a drug dog was sent for. It was reasonable although it took 20 minutes to arrive. United States v. Smith, 645 F.3d 998 (8th Cir. 2011).*

Claim that a witness’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the trial court’s order to show the file he was testifying from [which is not error anyway] cannot be raised by a party because it is not his rights at issue. Gottschalk v. Gottschalk, 311 Ga. App. 304, 715 S.E.2d 715 (2011).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.