The defendant argued that a search warrant was required for the police to send an informant in to make a buy. This was rejected. State v. Prestwich, 2007 UT App 206, 2007 Utah App. LEXIS 212 (June 14, 2007):<\/p>\n
Defendant first argues that the trial court erred in failing to suppress evidence seized in violation of his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures when a confidential informant entered Defendant’s home without a search warrant. “However, the Fourth Amendment has no application to the actions of invited and authorized persons, even when, unbeknownst to the unwary, they are acting as police agents.” State v. McArthur<\/em>, 2000 UT App 23, P20, 996 P.2d 555 (emphasis omitted). “It is not illegal for a private individual, even if acting as a government agent, to enter another’s home if he or she does so with the owner’s permission.” State v. Koury<\/em>, 824 P.2d 474, 478 (Utah Ct. App. 1991). Here, the confidential informant initiated contact with Defendant, made arrangements to buy marijuana from Defendant, and went to Defendant’s residence to conduct the purchase. The confidential informant asked Defendant if she could enter his apartment, and Defendant allowed her in the residence. Based on this evidence, we conclude that the confidential informant’s entry was permissive and that the trial court did not err in ruling that the warrantless entry did not implicate the Fourth Amendment. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The defendant was ordered out of his vehicle by an officer who came upon his parked vehicle. “In the instant case, defendant was directed to exit his vehicle, subjected to a pat-down search, instructed to perform field sobriety tests and then told to sit down on the police vehicle before the officer asked him to sign the consent form authorizing a search of the interior of the vehicle. Defendant was treated as if he was not free to leave …. We note that, although not mandatory, the People did not establish that defendant was advised that he could refuse to consent to the search …. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that defendant’s consent was not voluntary.” People v. Keesler, 2007 NY Slip Op 27247, 16 Misc. 3d 45 (2d Dept. 2007).*<\/p>\n
Franks<\/em> hearing denied where the affidavits offered did not make it impossible for the drug deal to have gone down as the informant said it did. The affidavits were from biased witnesses who were related to the defendant. People v. Gorosteata, 374 Ill. App. 3d 203, 312 Ill. Dec. 492, 870 N.E.2d 936 (6th Dist. 2007).*<\/p>\n
Defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging a search that was uniformly testified to be consensual. People v. Starnes, 2007 Ill. App. LEXIS 652 (2d Dist. June 12, 2007), released for publication July 17, 2007.*<\/p>\n
Officers showed probable cause to seize photographs of nude young boys from defendant’s house based on his own admissions there would be photographs. His staleness argument was not raised in the trial court and was waived. Commonwealth v. Tiffany, 2007 PA Super 162, 926 A.2d 503 (2007).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading