{"id":1351,"date":"2008-01-03T13:42:22","date_gmt":"2007-09-14T06:54:02","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-09-14T06:54:02","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1351","title":{"rendered":"Internet traveler case supported automobile exception search of defendant’s car"},"content":{"rendered":"

A defendant accused as an internet traveler for enticement of a minor under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2422(b)<\/a> who said “that he was going to bring condoms, an iPod and a black nightie to his liaison” in his chat sessions justified a search of the car when he showed up. United States v. Collins, 515 F. Supp. 2d 891 (N.D. Ind. 2007).<\/p>\n

Randolph<\/em><\/a> does not require that the defendant be asked for consent first.
\nUnited States v. Lopez, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66937 (D. Conn. September 12, 2007).*<\/p>\n

Merely knocking on the door is not a police created exigency. The officers had credible evidence that defendant fled into a motel room with a gun. United States v. Bullock, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67098 (W.D. Pa. September 11, 2007):<\/p>\n

Here, it was reasonable for the officers to conclude that evidence could be destroyed, that an injured victim or accomplice could be inside the room, or that the officers or other people inside the hotel were in danger. Although there was an intense police presence inside, and around the hotel, such that defendant likely could not have left the hotel undetected, it is possible that evidence, such as blood evidence, could have been destroyed inside the hotel room. In addition, defendant’s demeanor, his being connected to the crime scene by an inhaler, the blood on the carpet outside his door, and a gun missing from the scene of the shooting could all lead the officers to reasonably conclude that a person inside the room was in distress, or that the hotel guests and officers, could be in danger. For all these reasons, the officers’ entry into the room was justified by exigent circumstances.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Not putting on evidence at a suppression hearing is not IAC where there was no showing as to what should have been put on that was not that would influence the outcome. Berthelot v. United States, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67070 (E.D. Tex. September 10, 2007). (Comment:<\/em> This merely states the obvious. In many search issues, the only evidence to come directly from the defendant is standing, and even that can often be proved through the officers.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1351","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1351","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1351"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1351\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1351"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1351"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1351"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}