Police seized the "black box" from a demolished car in impound that was immobile without a warrant and then got a warrant showing independent probable cause. The prior warrantless seizure did not void the warrant because of the independent source of the information supplied to get the warrant. People v. Slade, 2005 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3217, 233 N.Y.L.J. 11 (Nassau Co. January 18, 2005).

State showed probable cause but failed to show that exigent circumstances existed. Defendant's consent after unlawful warrantless entry was also void. Stone v. State, 279 S.W.3d 688 (Tex. App. — Amarillo December 21, 2006):

However, even with probable cause present, the State must also show that exigent circumstances existed such that the procurement of a search warrant was impractical. The State contends that the exigent circumstances arose when officers confronted the white female outside of the apartment. According to officer testimony, the encounter was within view of the apartment and, if seen, could have led to the destruction of evidence and possible violence and armed resistance from the occupants. However, the apartment occupants must have been aware of the officers' presence before it can be said that knowledge of the officers' presence somehow influenced the occupants' actions. See Grimaldo v. State, No. 07-04-0246, 2006 WL 563027, at *4 (Tex.App.-Amarillo March 8, 2006, no pet. h.). Inferences, opinions, and conclusions stimulating police action must be reasonably objective and supported by fact as opposed to speculation and surmise. Id. Although the lead officer believed that evidence could be destroyed, and that officers were potentially in danger, the record does not contain facts rendering the lead officer's beliefs objectively reasonable. See id. Thus, we conclude the State did not establish the existence of exigent circumstances necessary for a warrantless search. Therefore, we conclude that, although probable cause existed, the absence of exigent circumstances make the warrantless entry into appellant's home unlawful.

Defendant was handcuffed during his stop for officer safety, and the officer saw a Brinks uniform in the car which led him to believe that the defendant was involved in a robbery where a Brinks uniform was worn. While handcuffing occurred, the defendant was under arrest until Mirandized. State v. Snyder, 2006 Ohio 6911, 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 6817 (9th Dist. December 27, 2006).*

Defendant was a suspect in a murder in Maryland, and a search warrant was obtained in West Virginia. Maryland officers and a crime scene unit came to the scene to assist in the execution of the warrant because they were familiar with the facts of the case. There was no prohibition under West Virginia law for Maryland officers to "assist" (or actually do it) as long as West Virginia officers were there. Also, defendant had no right to see the search warrant for another person and his premises to see if there was anything in there that was exculpatory to the defense. The trial judge did look in camera and found nothing which aided the defense. It was clear that the defendant had no standing in the search of the other person. Daniels v. State, 172 Md. App. 75, 913 A.2d 617 (December 26, 2006).

Summary judgment denied officers because of a factual dispute on the questions of probable cause and exigent circumstances. Hopkins v. Bonvicino, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93131 (N.D. Cal. December 21, 2006).

Stop was justified because the defendant matched the general description of a man wanted in an assault with a firearm. This included a frisk of his vehicle that produced a gun. United States v. Yarbrough, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44167 (N.D. N.Y. January 4, 2005).*

Officers lacked exigent circumstances for a warrantless entry based on assertions from a person they just arrested that they had to have understood would be seeking leniency for himself and by becoming a snitch. United States v. Markeif, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93028 (M.D. Pa. December 22, 2006):

The Government asserts that the basis for exigent circumstances formed upon the arrest of Cummings and the information he subsequently proffered to the officers at that point. We accept that Cummings told the officers to "get him out of here" and that he speculated that the individuals observed down the street, some of whom may have been talking on cellular phones, knew his employers in South Williamsport. However, Cummings was admittedly unknown to the officers, as were the individuals down the street, and therefore the officers had no way of knowing whether Cummings was credible or reliable in his assertion that his employers were being "tipped off." Moreover, the officers did not endeavor to engage the witnessing individuals in a discussion to corroborate Cummings' assertions to them. In fact, Cummings was acting in accordance with the way many arrested drug dealers do; he was attempting to give the officers some information in the hopes that they would grant him consideration regarding his arrest. These experienced officers were, or should have been, well aware that upon his arrest, Cummings' priorities were those of self-interest and self-preservation, and with cognizance of Cummings' motivation, the officers should have proceeded with some caution upon any information proffered by Cummings. We find that there is no credible evidence that tends to show that the occupants of Apartment 1, 1920 Riverside Drive were aware that the police were on their trail. Any assertion in that regard involves rank speculation. Cummings' suppositions could have been checked out by the officers, but they were not. Therefore, as a corollary, we cannot find, based upon Cummings' assertions alone, that the officers had a reasonable belief that contraband was being removed or secreted.

Next and importantly, the actions of the officers following the arrest of Cummings do not indicate to the Court that they wholly believed it was urgent to enter Apartment 1, 1920 Riverside Drive to preserve evidence. Lt. Ungard did not immediately travel to the vicinity of 1920 Riverside Drive upon Cummings' arrest, but rather accompanied him back to Williamsport City Hall. Thereafter, Lt. Ungard proceeded to 1920 Riverside Drive and commenced surveillance. He then observed individuals who fit the description of the suspected residents of Apartment 1 enter and leave the apartment building, however he made no attempt to question or follow these individuals. This is somewhat remarkable, in that Lt. Ungard testified that he was concerned these individuals were leaving with evidence. Further it is clear that Lt. Ungard and other officers were safely able to obtain surveillance positions, and there was no evident danger to the officers if they continued to maintain surveillance while a warrant was being sought.

After a searching review of the facts we are left with the inescapable conclusion that there existed no affirmative evidence that destruction of evidence was imminent, simply because no evidence indicated that the occupants of Apartment 1, 1920 Riverside Drive were aware of Cummings' arrest or his accusations against them. Instead what we find is apparent post hoc reasoning by the Government that attempts to wedge this warrantless entry into a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. Essentially the Government is asking this Court to cure a conundrum of its own making by buying into an artificial construct of both exigent circumstances and probable cause, which we plainly cannot do.

Summary judgment granted arresting officers because plaintiff was stopped while driving a vehicle stolen at gunpoint. Powell v. Hill, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92855 (E.D. Mich. December 26, 2006).*

Pro se § 1983 plaintiff survived summary judgment on illegal search claim despite defendant's claim it was barred by Heck because it did not yet challenge a conviction. Medley v. McClindon, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93032 (E.D. Mo. December 26, 2006).*

Two anticipatory search warrants were executed on the lawyer defendant for alleged bankruptcy fraud. When confronted by the FBI and an AUSA, he made a proffer. After being charged, he sought to suppress the search via a motion in limine concerning the government's attempt to void the proffer for lack of candor. The motion was denied. United States v. Peel, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92880 (S.D. Ill. December 22, 2006).*

Broad allegations that probable cause was lacking without any specifics was insufficient to get a Franks hearing. Motion denied without prejudice. United States v. Trikha, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92885 (S.D. Ill. December 22, 2006).*