Defendant was arrested for having an open container that was in plain view. While a search incident at the time of the arrest would have been valid, a search the next day was not. People v Tashbaeva, 35 Misc. 3d 812, 938 N.Y.S.2d 873, 2012 NY Slip Op 22022 (Richmond Co. 2012).

The officers had reasonable suspicion for stopping a Lincoln Town Car that pulled up in front of a residence under surveillance for drug activity. The car stopped 3-5′ from the curb, the driver stayed in the car, somebody ran inside, stayed a few seconds, and came back out, and then the car drove away committing a couple of traffic offenses. When the officer started following, the Town Car stopped in the middle of the street. Lovato v. State, 2012 WY 10, 269 P.3d 426 (2012).*

Defendant and the officer taking his statement were unaware of an allegedly illegal search of his computer for child pornography before he made an incriminating statement. Therefore, the statement was not caused by the illegal search. United States v. Howe, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12989 (W.D. N.Y. February 2, 2012).*

The officer had information about defendant usually being in possession of drugs when he was driving in town, and the officer saw him. Once the officer started following, defendant’s driving pattern of going in circles suggested evasion. Defendant tossed drugs when the lights came on and Tennessee law favors the defendant on that, but the existence of reasonable suspicion makes the stop reasonable. State v. Gibson, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 289 (May 8, 2012)*:

Additionally, we are compelled to address the State’s and the trial court’s mistaken reliance on California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 111 S. Ct. 1547, 113 L. Ed. 2d 690 (1991), and State v. Baker, 966 S.W.2d 429 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997), for the proposition that Gibson could not challenge the admissibility of the drugs he dropped out of the car after O’Dell turned on his blue lights. The Tennessee Supreme Court has rejected the holding of Hodari D., making it, and our previous cases relying on it, inapplicable here. See State v. Randolph, 74 S.W.3d 330, 337 (Tenn. 2002).

The officer had probable cause to stop the defendant for DUI. State v. Padgett, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 291 (May 9, 2012).*

Defendant was stopped for following too close, and the driver exhibited signs he was under the influence of marijuana. Ultimately, a dog alerted. People v. Wofford, 969 N.E.2d 383, 2012 IL App (5th) 100138 (2012), Motion to Publish Granted May 9, 2012.*

Defendant’s stop for a taillight being out was cause for the stop, defendant’s inability to answer basic questions about what he was doing and where he was going in a high crime area, his criminal record, and his generally matching the description of a robber became reasonable suspicion. A protective weapons search under Michigan v. Long is an exception to Gant. United States v. Lewis, 466 Fed. Appx. 170 (4th Cir. 2012) (unpublished)*:

[T]the officer reasonably believed that Lewis could be armed and dangerous. Moreover, Lewis’ lack of restraint and close proximity to the driver’s side door permit the conclusion that Lewis could access any weapons within the vehicle. See Long, 463 U.S. at 1051-52; United States v. Elston, 479 F.3d 314, 320 (4th Cir. 2007).

… [T]he limited restraint placed on Lewis prior to the search did not amount to a formal arrest that would trigger Gant’s protection.

A search and seizure § 1983 claim accrues on the date of the search. One can’t wait until after reversal on appeal to sue if it ran in the meantime. Here, the suit would be barred by qualified immunity. Rollin v. Cook, 466 Fed. Appx. 665 (9th Cir. 2012) (unpublished).*

Eleven month delay in getting a search warrant in a child pornography case was not stale as a matter of law, since the Fifth Circuit has upheld an 18 month delay. United States v. Baker, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7949 (S.D. Tex. January 20, 2012).*

Officers’ hot pursuit of two fleeing suspects into this house justified their entry. The facts here are more compelling than Warden v. Hayden where SCOTUS approved of the hot pursuit doctrine. United States v. Davis, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7925 (S.D. Fla. January 17, 2012).*

The suspicious nature of defendant’s trip was apparent from his not really knowing where he was coming from or going or what he was carrying in his tractor-trailer. All this was developed after a stop for a frayed hose to the trailer. The questions were all unrelated to the stop, but still legitimate. United States v. Lopez-Merida, 466 Fed. Appx. 170 (10th Cir. 2012) (unpublished)*:

But during a traffic stop an officer can request the documents concerning the travel-such as driver’s license, registration, rental contract, or, as here, the driver’s log and shipping documents. See id.; United States v. Rosborough, 366 F.3d 1145, 1148 (10th Cir. 2004). The officer can also inquire about the trip being taken, see United States v. Vazquez, 555 F.3d 923, 928-29 (10th Cir. 2009), and can ask questions on any subject so long as the questioning does not prolong the detention beyond what is otherwise necessary to perform such routine tasks as computer checks and preparing reports and citations, see Karam, 496 F.3d at 1161. Moreover, if information obtained by such inquiries and other observations during the stop create reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime has been or is being committed, the officer can take reasonable steps to investigate. See Vazquez, 555 F.3d at 929.

Defendant fled at high speed across city boundaries from Cleveland to Lakewood City, and officers from the latter actually arrested him. Jurisdictional limits on police officers are irrelevant for Fourth Amendment purposes. United States v. King, 466 Fed. Appx. 484, 2012 FED App. 0270N (6th Cir. 2012).

A drug dog was called at the conclusion of the traffic stop, and it took 50 minutes to arrive. Since there was reasonable suspicion, this did not unreasonably extend the stop. Federal cases have permitted such detentions for longer. United States v. Adams, 2012 CCA LEXIS 87 (N.-M. Ct. App. March 15, 2012).*

Pro se defendant didn’t file a motion to suppress, so he couldn’t challenge the search on appeal. State v. Henderson, 2012 Ohio 1040, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 930 (8th Dist. March 15, 2012).

A warrant seeking “indicia” evidence, evidence of ownership or control of property, was not overbroad. Also, defendant’s brief does not show standing in the property searched. There was nothing tending to show that he had control over the property. United States v. Lisbon, 835 F. Supp. 2d 1329 (N.D. Ga. 2011):

Here, the items sought (identification documents and mail) were tempered by the object of the search – evidence of identity and/or occupancy of the premises searched – and in relation to the crimes under investigation. See Gurleski, 405 F.2d at 258 (noting that the “search must be one directed in good faith toward the objects specified in the warrant or for other means and instrumentalities by which the crime charged had been committed”). The executing agents were therefore given sufficient direction in executing the warrant and as a result, the warrant did not offend the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment. The former Fifth Circuit’s discussion in United States v. Haydel, 649 F.2d 1152 (5th Cir. Unit A July 1981), upon which Lisbon relied, demonstrates the inadequacy of Lisbon’s showing on standing. In Haydel, the evidence established that the defendant’s parents had given him permission to use their home and had given him a key, causing the court to conclude that his access was for all practical purposes unencumbered. Id. at 1155. Although the defendant in Haydel did not reside regularly at his parents’ home, he kept clothing there and had occasionally remained overnight, when he and his wife had domestic problems. Id. & n.2. Unlike Haydel, Lisbon’s statements that he kept belongings there are insufficient to establish the requisite legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises, as explained below.

The USMJ found that defendant lacked standing to contest the search of a motel room he vacated and the co-occupant consented. Defendant’s attack before the USDJ did not address both arguments, so the findings of the USMJ are sustained because either was sufficient. United States v. Stephens, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143551 (N.D. Ga. December 13, 2011):

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court must conduct a de novo review as to those portions of the R&R to which Defendant timely and specifically objected. The Court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Portions of the R&R to which Plaintiff has not specifically objected are reviewed for clear error only. See Tauber v. Barnhart, 438 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1373 (N.D. Ga. 2006) (Story, J.) (“[I]ssues upon which no specific objections are raised do not so require de novo review; the district court may therefore ‘accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in parts the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge[,]’ applying a clearly erroneous standard.”) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).

The co-occupant of a hotel room consented to an entry by the police, and they saw a sweater matching the description of a sweater worn in a bank robbery laying on an open suitcase. It was in plain view to the officer. State v. Sullivan, 2011 Ohio 6384, 2011 Ohio App. LEXIS 5243 (10th Dist. December 13, 2011).*

On remand from United States v. McCarty, 648 F.3d 820 (9th Cir. 2011), the district court finds the accidental viewing of child pornography photographs that fell from an envelope when a computer was removed from a bag was a valid administrative search. United States v. McCarty, 835 F. Supp. 2d 938 (D. Haw. 2011).*

The search here was conducted by a school resource police officer, and the court finds it was not a police search but a school search. State v. Alaniz, 2012 ND 76, 815 N.W.2d 234 (N.D. 2012). The standard:

[*P10] Other courts have addressed this issue and have held there are three categories of school searches based on the amount of police involvement: (1) when school officials initiate the search or police involvement is minimal, the reasonableness standard applies; (2) when the search involves school resource officers acting on their own initiative or at the direction of other school officials to further educationally related goals, the reasonableness standard applies; and (3) when “outside” police officers initiate the search, warrant and probable cause requirements apply. See, e.g., T.S. v. State, 863 N.E.2d 362, 367-68 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007); Myers v. State, 839 N.E.2d 1154, 1160 (Ind. 2005); State v. Burdette, 225 P.3d 736, 740 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010); In re D.L.D., 694 S.E.2d 395, 400 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010); State v. J.M., 255 P.3d 828, 832 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).

[*P11] In determining how much police involvement occurred and which standard applies, courts have considered various factors, including whether the officer was in uniform, whether the officer has an office on the school campus, how much time the officer is at the school each day, whether the officer is employed by the school system or an independent law enforcement agency, what the officer’s duties are at the school, who initiated the investigation, who conducted the search, whether other school officials were involved, and the officer’s purpose in conducting the search. See T.S., at 369-71; Burdette, at 740; R.D.S. v. State, 245 S.W.3d 356, 368 (Tenn. 2008). We agree with the rationale used by these courts to determine which standard should apply to school searches.

Issuance of a search warrant in Wisconsin is not purely a judicial function under state law or the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, court commissioners can issue search warrants. State v. Williams, 2012 WI 59, 341 Wis. 2d 191, 814 N.W.2d 460 (2012):

¶3 Throughout Wisconsin’s history, including before the ratification of the Wisconsin Constitution, non-judges have been authorized by statute to issue search warrants. Therefore, we conclude that the issuance of a search warrant is not an exercise of “[t]he judicial power,” as that phrase is employed in Article VII, Section 2 of the Wisconsin Constitution. Instead, issuance of a valid search warrant requires that the individual be authorized by law to issue the warrant, that he or she be neutral and detached, and that the warrant be issued only upon a showing of probable cause.

¶4 Because we also conclude that Wis. Stat. § 757.69(1)(b), which allocates the power to issue search warrants to circuit court commissioners, does not impermissibly intrude upon “[t]he judicial power” granted to the courts by Article VII, Section 2 of the Wisconsin Constitution, we hold that § 757.69(1)(b) is constitutional. Therefore, the circuit court commissioner’s search warrant was validly issued. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s denial of Williams’ motion to suppress.

. . .

¶26 Therefore, we recognize that Article I, Section 11’s warrant requirement has not mandated a determination of probable cause by a judge or a court of record. Non-judges who are “neutral and detached” and are able to ascertain whether probable cause exists have been expected to issue search warrants in the past, provided that they are authorized by statute to do so. Accordingly, issuance of a search warrant does not require an exercise of the judicial power that is vested exclusively in courts under Article VII, Section 2. Although issuing a search warrant may require some exercise of quasi-judicial power, it is something less than and distinguishable from the power vested in courts and elected judges.

I remember the briefs in Leon pointing out the large number of non-trained judicial and quasi-judicial officers (like state JPs) who could issue warrants. Leon didn’t address this, and this case doesn’t cite Leon, but it doesn’t have to. If the warrant is valid, good faith doesn’t matter.

h/t to a reader

A “checkpoint,” without hardly telling us what for, was valid where it snared the defendant, a habitual driving offender with no license. Desposito v. Commonwealth, 726 S.E.2d 355 (Va. App. 2012):

Appellant’s challenge to the validity of the checkpoint is limited to two points: (1) the supervisor’s direction that the checkpoint should be conducted “during the lunchtime” leaves the officers with unbridled discretion as to the time of operation; and (2) the plan is flawed because while it requires a 30-minute minimum operational duration, the plan does not establish a maximum time, thus allowing the officers at the checkpoint to determine the duration of the operation. These omissions, appellant contends, render the checkpoint constitutionally unsound, thus violating his Fourth Amendment rights.

“As a preliminary matter, checkpoints with the primary objective of enforcing safety requirements are constitutional.” Wright v. Commonwealth, 52 Va. App. 263, 268, 663 S.E.2d 108, 111 (2008) (citing Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 658 (1979)); see also Palmer v. Commonwealth, 36 Va. App. 169, 172, 549 S.E.2d 29, 30 (2001) (holding the purpose of a checkpoint was valid when officers stopped vehicles to look for “any violations on the vehicles, such as drivers’ license, equipment, [or] inspection”).

. . .

The reasonableness of such seizures, which are less intrusive than a traditional arrest, depends “on a balance between the public interest and the individual’s right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers.” Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 50-51 (1979) (citing Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 109 (1977)). In considering the constitutionality of these seizures on appeal, we must weigh “the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and the severity of the interference with individual liberty.” Id. at 51.

What is the public interest in stopping everybody to look for a driver’s license? Bank robbers, kidnapers [Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 183 (1949) (Jackson, J., dissenting)], DUIs? Yes. General crime control, no. I just cannot accept that a driver’s license checkpoint is constitutional under Edmund or Sitz. And, yes, Prouse was decided in 1979, and its throwaway reference to driver’s license checkpoints was wrong then and it’s still wrong. If SCOTUS is concerned about “it could happen to us,” then they might now agree. To quote “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,” “Uh, what country do you think this is?” American highways are not constitution free zones.

Please, somebody, take this up.

A private search of a storage unit became a government search because the officer was standing by watching, and then, after drugs were found in one box, the officer entered and opened two boxes himself. The police may be present at a private search, but they cannot participate without making it a government search. State v. Archer, 2011 Ohio 5471, 197 Ohio App. 3d 570, 968 N.E.2d 495 (7th Dist. 2011):

[*P21] But when the police become involved in a private individual’s search, the probable cause and warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment may apply; thus the courts must look to the level of police involvement to determine whether it was a private search or an unreasonable police search. Morris at 316. State v. Willis, 169 Ohio App.3d 364, 2005 Ohio 5754, 862 N.E.2d 906, at ¶28. “Official participation in the planning or implementation of a private person’s efforts to secure evidence may taint the operation sufficiently as to require suppression of the evidence. The test of government participation is whether under all the circumstances the private individual must be regarded as an agent or instrument of the state. Dillon, supra; Katz, Ohio Arrest, Search and Seizure (2005), Section 27:12 at p. 604.” Ellis, at ¶14. Although the state usually bears the burden of proving that an exception to the warrant requirement exists where a warrantless search has occurred, the defendant bears the burden of proving that there was ‘sufficient governmental involvement in seemingly private conduct’ to consider it a state search. State v. Jedd, (2001), 146 Ohio App.3d 167, at 171-2, 2001 Ohio 2479, 765 N.E.2d 880.

In a domestic violence call, the police had no information that anybody other than the defendant was involved nor that there were weapons. Defendant came out and peaceably surrendered, and then they entered. Therefore, a protective sweep of his house was unreasonable. The state argued that the two hour delay in the police arriving (! Come on.) at house after the call meant that all risk was not eliminated. [Obviously no exigency after two hours either.] State v. McLemore, 2012 Ohio 521, 197 Ohio App. 3d 726, 968 N.E.2d 612 (2d Dist. 2012).

Two trailers and a truck were parked on an open lot surrounded by a chain link fence, and only the space where they were parked was leased by the defendant. The owner let the police in, and they found the vehicles were stolen from the VINs. The trial court erred in holding that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the chainlink fenced area from all intrusion. State v. Anderson, 2012 Ohio 441, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 382 (2d Dist. February 3, 2012).*

NJ refuses to overrule State v. Pena-Flores without a full statistical record. The one proffered by the state was too limited. State v. Shannon, 210 N.J. 225, 43 A.3d 1146 (2012)*:

In these companion cases, the State asks the Court to revisit its recent decision in State v. Pena-Flores, 198 N.J. 6, 965 A.2d 114 (2009), which addressed the proper standard for warrantless searches of motor vehicles. The State contends that the decision’s impact on police practices and New Jersey motorists provides special justification to overturn Pena-Flores. As support, the State relies in part on certain data taken only from New Jersey State Police motor vehicle stops. That data represents a fraction of statewide encounters with motorists and covers the limited period of time since Pena-Flores went into effect.

We do not find sufficient support in the current record to establish the “special justification” needed to depart from precedent. State v. Brown, 190 N.J. 144, 157, 919 A.2d 107 (2007) (quoting Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 443, 120 S. Ct. 2326, 2336, 147 L. Ed. 2d 405, 419 (2000)). We rely on the Attorney General, the Public Defender, the American Civil Liberties Union, appearing in this matter as amicus curiae, and other interested non-parties to amass and develop a more thorough, statistical record over time relating to motor vehicle stops by the State Police and local authorities.

To the extent that it is impractical to collect data from local law enforcement throughout the entire State, data from representative urban, suburban, and rural areas may suffice. That information should include, where possible, (a) the total number of motor vehicle stops, (b) the number of warrantless probable cause searches conducted, consent searches requested, consent searches conducted, and vehicles impounded — both before and after Pena-Flores — and (c) other relevant information.

The first paragraph of Pena-Flores:

At issue in these appeals, which we have consolidated for the purpose of this opinion, is the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. Today, we reaffirm our longstanding precedent that permits an automobile search without a warrant only in cases in which the police have both probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains evidence and exigent circumstances that would justify dispensing with the warrant requirement. The question of whether exigent circumstances exist is to be determined, as it has always been, on a case-by-case basis with the focus on police safety and preservation of evidence.

Don’t be concerned about the court relying on the ACLU–New Jersey has been sued repeatedly over the last two decades for racial profiling and other abuses, and most have been proved. See, e.g., State v. Carty, 170 N.J. 632, 790 A.2d 903 (2002), discussing the statistic proof of driving while black and intimidation once stopped.

Defendant was accused of twice getting out of his car and battering his girlfriend. When police arrived, they had a reliable report that defendant might be armed because they threatened to shoot a bystander witness, and that justified a search of his car under the automobile exception. Commonwealth v. Gouse, 461 Mass. 787, 965 N.E.2d 774 (2012).*

Defendant’s driving back and forth three times in five minutes in front of a construction site at 1 a.m. where anhydrous ammonia was stored was reasonable suspicion. “No one was supposed to be at the construction site at that hour. Officers can consider the lateness of the hour in determining whether criminal activity was afoot.” State v. Morgan, 366 S.W.3d 565 (Mo. App. 2012).*

Defendant was virtually strip searched for drugs on the street. He was arrested and face down on the sidewalk, and the arresting officers pulled down his pants to get to the drugs hidden in his buttocks. This was unreasonable. The officers knew that the lump in his pants was not a weapon. Commonwealth v. Morales, 462 Mass. 334, 968 N.E.2d 403 (2012):

Here, with regard to the strip search, at the time when Detective Desmarais removed the drugs from between the defendant’s buttock area, the police did not, as we suggested in Commonwealth v. Thomas, supra at 409 n.5, conduct the search in a private room or in any private location. The handcuffed defendant was face down on a public sidewalk and surrounded by four police officers. Detective Desmarais had determined that the lump in the rear of the defendant’s shorts was not a weapon. Thus, there was no concern that the defendant could have used a weapon against the officers, fled, or destroyed evidence. With no exigency existing, the defendant should have been transported to a private space or location. Doing so would have avoided what followed, namely, the public exposure of his buttocks, an embarrassing and humiliating intrusion of the defendant’s privacy. Indeed, the policy of the Lowell police department prohibits strip searches outside the confines of a police station. In the circumstances, the location of this search was inappropriate.

The manner in which the search proceeded, whereby the defendant’s buttocks were publicly exposed in the absence of exigent circumstances, was unreasonable. See Paulino v. State, 399 Md. 341, 359 (2007) (instead of reaching into defendant’s underwear to retrieve contraband, officer lifted up defendant’s underwear and publicly exposed his buttocks, which rendered search unreasonable). There was no explanation in the record why Detective Desmarais was able to inspect the defendant’s buttocks area for drugs without public exposure, but was unable to retrieve the drugs without the resulting exposure. If Detective Desmarais could not have retrieved the drugs without exposing the defendant’s buttocks, he should not have conducted the search on a public sidewalk. Both the inappropriate location of the search and the manner in which it was conducted rendered the strip search constitutionally unreasonable under both the Federal and State Constitutions. Accordingly, we affirm the judge’s order of suppression.

A third party consented to the search both verbally and non-verbally by gesturing the police to enter. United States v. Lee, 835 F. Supp. 2d 657 (N.D. Ind. 2011):

What’s more, Saffa also gave non-verbal consent for the agents to come into the house. Consent to enter can be non-verbal. U.S. v. Villegas, 388 F.3d 317, 324-25 (7th Cir. 2004); U.S. v. Cotnam, 88 F.3d 487, 495 (7th Cir. 1996). In other words, a person’s actions alone can manifest his or her consent to a search. U.S. v. Walls, 225 F.3d 858, 863-64 (7th Cir. 2000); U.S. v. Rosario, 962 F.2d 733, 735, 737 (7th Cir. 1992). Recall that after Saffa opened the door, the agents asked if Krystal Lee was there, and independent of her words, Saffa non-verbally communicated to the agents that Krystal was in the house, and that they could enter it. She did this by opening the door wider, stepping back, and gesturing into the house. Opening a door, stepping back to permit agents to enter the home, and gesturing to come in convey consent to enter. Lewis, 608 F.3d at 999; Walls, 225 F.3d at 862-63; Rosario, 962 F.2d at 737. In this case, it is clear from the testimony of the officers — and from Saffa herself — that her actions constituted non-verbal consent to enter the house to find Krystal.

District court did not clearly err in concluding that a reasonable person would believe defendant had voluntarily consented to a search of his vehicle when he said “sure” in response to the officer’s request to search the car, despite giving his name when he was asked his age. Also, the passenger did not have standing to challenge the search. United States v. Guzman, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3343 (8th Cir. February 21, 2012) (unpublished).*

During defendant’s stop for a traffic offense (with the real motive pursuing a meth trafficking investigation), defendant was really nervous and his answers didn’t make sense and he had no driver’s license. Defendant consented to a search, only challenging the basis for the stop, not the consent. Under the hood, it was apparent the air filter had been recently tampered with, and inside was powder methamphetamine. State v. Lopez, 2012 N.C. App. LEXIS 284 (February 21, 2012).*

The district court dismissed this § 1983 claim, inter alia, under Heck v. Humphrey because of a valid state conviction. Plaintiff never really addressed that on appeal, and the judgment is affirmed. Taylor v. Streicher, 465 Fed. Appx. 414, 2012 FED App. 0199N (6th Cir. 2012) (unpublished).*

The search warrant was for marijuana, cocaine, and paraphernalia, but there was only probable cause for marijuana, so the remainder is excised from the warrant. Nevertheless, the police were properly in defendant’s home on the warrant, and they could seize other drugs in plain view and as inevitable discovery. Commonwealth v. Anderson, 2012 PA Super 65, 40 A.3d 1245 (2012).

Two people lived at defendant’s house besides him, and one of the others granted consent. There was no reason to doubt their authority to consent. Smallfoot v. State, 2012 WY 39, 272
P.3d 314 (2012).*

The district judge does not need to say that a de novo review was done because it is presumed that it was. Defendant was removed from the house and another officer stayed behind to ask about others in the house, and then a plain view occurred. It was reasonable. United States v. Ginn, 465 Fed. Appx. 585 (8th Cir. 2012) (unpublished).*

Defendant’s search incident pre-Gant was valid under McCane and Davis, so the motion to suppress was properly denied. The fact state law had no good faith exception was irrelevant in a federal case. United States v. Madden, 682 F.3d 920 (10th Cir. 2012):

Madden argues the good-faith exception does not apply in this case for several reasons. He first asserts the search of his vehicle was not objectively reasonable because the state of Oklahoma does not recognize the good-faith exception and Officer Balderrama should have known that. Whether Oklahoma recognizes the good-faith exception, however, has no bearing on the outcome of this case. This court is not bound by a state court’s interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. Wilder v. Turner, 490 F.3d 810, 814 (10th Cir. 2007). “[I]n federal prosecutions the test of reasonableness in relation to the Fourth Amendment protected rights must be determined by Federal Law even though the police actions are those of state police officers.” United States v. Green, 178 F.3d 1099, 1105 (10th Cir. 1999) (quotations omitted). Whether an “arrest, search, or seizure may have violated state law is irrelevant as long as the standards developed under the Federal Constitution were not offended.” Id. (quotation omitted).

In fact, the mere lack of a state good faith exception would be a good reason for the USAO to take a case. Quirks in state search and seizure law often lead to the “silver platter” giving the feds a search bad under state law but not federal law. Been there, done that.