Defendant agreed to consent to a search after being told that officers would get a warrant and break in. His desire to avoid damage to property from execution of a search warrant is not coercion. United States v. Gayheart, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10740 (E.D. Ky. February 14, 2007).
Probable cause was established by highly detailed information from a confidential informant who arranged with an “unwitting informant” to make a controlled buy off defendant. United States v. Liapis, 216 Fed. Appx. 776 (10th Cir. 2007)* (unpublished).
Defendant cannot give one version of facts in his motion to suppress, remain silent on those facts during the suppression hearing before the U.S. Magistrate Judge, and then present an alternate version in the request for review before the U.S. District Judge. Also, the defendant claimed a “material witness” who was deemed irrelevant for the purposes stated, but now that witness was stated to have additional facts not presented. United States v. Rios, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10764 (D. P.R. February 13, 2007).*
Officer had reasonable suspicion for engaging defendant in conversation that was arguably a stop at an address known to be a drug house, and the officer knew the following:
(1) the area of 44th and Paseo had been the subject of numerous police calls;
(2) the address at 4344 Paseo was in one of the “hot spots” Officer Melkowski was assigned to “proactive duty”;
(3) at several community meetings, there were numerous citizen complaints of drug activity on the steps of 4344 Paseo;
(4) confidential informants had provided information that drugs were being sold on the steps of 4344 Paseo. The confidential informants told police that they had observed 12 to 15 different cars stop at different times during the day at 4344 Paseo and that individuals on the stairs would go down to the cars, conduct hand-to-hand drug transactions, return to the stairs, and the cars would drive away;
(5) other police teams who worked in the area had informed Officer Melkowski of suspected drug activity at 4344 Paseo; and
(6) none of the individuals standing on the steps of 4344 Paseo in the early morning hours of July 28, 2006 resided at that address.
United States v. Johnson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10732 (W.D. Mo. January 30, 2007).*
Live-in girlfriend for 13 years had apparent authority to consent to a search of a shop building on the curtilage. State v. Watkins, 640 S.E.2d 409 (N.C. App. 2007).*
Stop based on partially peeling but otherwise valid inspection sticker was invalid. Moore v. Commonwealth, 49 Va. App. 294, 640 S.E.2d 531 (2007).*
Police did a knock and talk after locating a stolen tractor trailer of anhydrous ammonia. They passed by a window and saw a gun case through the window. After they talked to the people inside, they noticed that the gun case was gone. That justified a protective sweep. Also, the presence of 2,000 gallons of anhydrous in a tanker trailer nearby residences was inherently dangerous and was exigent circumstances. State v. Smith, 153 P.3d 199 (2007).*
