CA4: Officers with arrest warrant for def could enter yard of property they knew he was visiting to arrest him; plain view sustained

Defendant was a social visitor, not a business visitor, and his standing is more like Olson than Carter. The district court erred in finding no standing. On the merits, however, he loses on a ground fully litigated but not decided below. “And from the beginning, the government has argued in the alternative that no Fourth Amendment violation occurred on the day of Green’s arrest. The district court did not reach this question, but we ‘may affirm on any grounds apparent from the record.’ … And here, the undisputed record facts make clear that the officers lawfully entered Yates’s yard pursuant to an arrest warrant for Green and then seized Green’s gun consistent with the Fourth Amendment plain-view doctrine.” United States v. Green, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 16112 (4th Cir. July 2, 2024).

Defendant found out after trial that the investigating officer altered the original search warrants and return because of defects he discovered. He filed a motion for new trial alleging a Brady violation because it was impeaching. It wasn’t prejudicial enough to matter. Potts v. Commonwealth, 2024 Va. App. LEXIS 381 (July 2, 2024) (unpublished).*

Defendant’s motion to suppress for the judge issuing the search warrant lacking jurisdiction was properly denied. They were cross-designated by the Supreme Court during covid to multiple jurisdictions. Caples v. State, 2024 Md. App. LEXIS 502 (July 1, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Neutral and detached magistrate, Plain view, feel, smell, Standing, Warrant papers. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.