Police had a search warrant for defendant’s premises and cut holes in the walls looking for evidence. They started in a logical place, and defendant argued that some were random and arbitrary, but nothing was found there. So, in a criminal case, there was nothing to suppress from those holes. United States v. Whisnant, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54418 (E.D. Tenn. July 26, 2007):<\/p>\n
While executing the search, the police came across a piece of framed artwork (“Artwork”) mounted on a wall in the Premises. Photographs of the Artwork were admitted into evidence during the May 29, 2007, suppression hearing. [Defendant’s Collective Exhibit Five.] The photographs reveal that the area behind the Artwork had been painted in a manner that can be described as haphazard, at best. The wall the Artwork was mounted on appears to have a solid, professional looking coat of paint, but the area immediately surrounding and behind the Artwork had been painted with what were described in the R&R as “fast brush strokes.” The difference between the workmanship of the area immediately surrounding the Artwork and the remainder of the wall is striking, and certainly is sufficient to cause a reasonable police officer to believe that something might be hidden behind that portion of the wall.<\/p>\n
Additionally, Detective Anderson testified at the hearing that the Artwork was the only piece of mounted art in the entire Premises. [Doc. 20 at 3.] Detective Anderson also noted that the Artwork was mounted in an unusual manner, it had been attached to the wall with four screws rather than hung on the wall. [Id.<\/em>] Accordingly, based upon the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that it was reasonable for the police to believe that something might be hidden in the wall behind the Artwork. The Court further finds that it was reasonable, and permissible, for the police to cut a hole in the wall behind the Artwork while executing the search warrant. It is true that, under Bonds<\/em>, the police may have effectively seized the wall by cutting holes in it, but that seizure was not unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances and did not violate the Fourth Amendment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Probable cause was shown for the search warrant for defendant’s premises. The affidavit is reviewed as a whole: “The validity of a warrant is not determined by ‘nit-picking’ discreet portions of the application. Rather, the test is whether, under the totality of the circumstances presented in the affidavit, the issuing judge had a ‘substantial basis’ for determining that probable cause existed.” United States v. Campbell, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54357 (D. Kan. July 25, 2007).*<\/p>\n
Probable cause was shown on the totality from the traffic to and from the premises, a trash pull, and massive purchases of matches. State v. Wilkinson<\/a>, 2007 SD 79, 739 N.W.2d 254 (2007):<\/p>\n
[*P21] Looking at the totality of the circumstances, the affidavit contained substantial evidence supporting probable cause. This is not a bare-bones affidavit that states only speculation. The affidavit contains numerous police observations including traffic flow indicating drug activity, frequent visits from individuals with known drug involvement, massive match book purchases, Herding’s vehicles at Bordwell’s residence, criminal histories and evidence from four trash pulls. These trash pulls yielded evidence of drug activities ranging from “owe sheets” to items with methamphetamine residue. Considering the totality of the circumstances, examination of the affidavit indicates a substantial basis for the issuing court’s determination of probable cause.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Consent to search defendant’s car on the side of an interstate highway was valid, but the officer decided that it was unsafe there and mentioned it would be removed to another location for search. “Thompson did not object. Given the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would have understood that Thompson’s consent was not limited to searching the car on the side of the highway, but that it extended to searching the car in a safer location.” United States v. Thompson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54346 (E.D. Mo. July 24, 2007).*<\/p>\n
Officers put in the affidavit for the search warrant that others might be present and they should be subject to search, too. Ybarra<\/em> is distinguishable because there was no known connection between the bartender who was the target of the search there and the mere customers. United States v. White, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54364 (D. Or. July 23, 2007):<\/p>\n
The law does not require exclusion of evidence found while officers are rightfully searching a location under a properly issued warrant, even if the evidence supports charges for a related crime or against a suspect “not expressly contemplated in the warrant.” United States v. Adjani<\/em>, 452 F.3d 1140, 1151 (no need to exclude evidence implicating a woman when the evidence was found on her computer and the woman lived with the primary suspect but was only mentioned in the warrant’s affidavit as participating with the suspect in possibly innocuous activities) (9th Cir.), cert. denied,<\/em> 127 S. Ct. 568 (2006). That is what happened here. The warrant provides probable cause to search other people found at the residence as well as all parts of the residence.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
“We reverse because the record reveals that the officers were engaged in a valid community caretaking function when, after receiving a telephone complaint about a car, they approached it after finding it parked on a dead-end road, at night, its lights switched off, windows fogged, and an unknown number of people inside. When the windows were rolled down and the officers smelled the odor of burnt marijuana coming from the car, they had probable cause to search the vehicle, and a reasonable search and seizure of apparent contraband followed.” In re J.M.E.<\/a>, 38 Kan. App. 2d 229, 162 P.3d 835 (2007).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading