Presented as an IAC claim, defendant\u2019s claim that the tracking number on the package on the anticipatory warrant had a typo was not sufficient to void the search. It was not a prejudicial error. Davidson v. State, 2014 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 761 (July 31, 2014).* <\/p>\n
While consent to search of rooms of a commonly used property are limited to the authority over the rooms, the defendant here was hiding in a closet in a room that he couldn\u2019t exclude anybody from. State v. Gatlin<\/a>, 2014 ND 162, 2014 N.D. LEXIS 168 (July 31, 2014).* <\/p>\n A known caller ID\u2019d defendant as having gotten drunk drinking all day at the caller\u2019s business and then drove off drunk. It wasn\u2019t necessary to describe the bad driving further. City of Columbus v. Fuentes<\/a>, 2014-Ohio-3337, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 3267 (10th Dist. July 31, 2014).* <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Presented as an IAC claim, defendant\u2019s claim that the tracking number on the package on the anticipatory warrant had a typo was not sufficient to void the search. It was not a prejudicial error. Davidson v. State, 2014 Tenn. Crim. … Continue reading