OK: Exclusion not the remedy for knock-and-announce violation under state constitution either

Exclusion is not the remedy for a knock-and-announce violation, following Hudson under state constitution, too. State v. Velasquez, 2024 OK CR 29, 2024 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 28 (Oct. 24, 2024).

Officers had a warrant for defendant’s arrest, and when his car was stopped, he wouldn’t get out right away. That became probable cause for the car. Even if probable cause was lacking, there was a valid inventory. United States v. McKen, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193019 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2024).*

Reasonable suspicion: “During the course of Trooper Allen’s investigation of the traffic violation that warranted the initial stop, he smelled marijuana emanating from Appellant’s vehicle and observed that Appellant’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy. … Trooper Allen further testified that Appellant acknowledged using marijuana at 9 p.m. earlier that evening and presented him with a ‘dab pen’ that contained suspected THC wax. … Thereafter, Trooper Allen asked Appellant to exit his vehicle so that he could conduct field sobriety tests.” Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 2024 PA Super 245 (Oct. 25, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Automobile exception, Knock and announce, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, State constitution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.