{"id":1428,"date":"2008-01-11T04:22:31","date_gmt":"2007-10-09T05:31:30","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-10-08T05:40:54","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1428","title":{"rendered":"Defendant moved out just before the search, so he lacked standing"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Defendant was in the process of moving in with deceased, but he admittedly had moved out a couple of days before. He said he had filled out a rental application but had not fully moved in before the break up. He had no standing to challenge the search. He also failed to show he qualified as a guest for standing. <a href=\"http:\/\/courts.state.ar.us\/opinions\/2007b\/20071004\/CR07-96.pdf\">Dunn v. State<\/a>, 2007 Ark. LEXIS 528 (October 4, 2007).*<\/p>\n<p>Defendant&#8217;s 15 year old son consented to an entry for the police to talk to defendant in a knock and talk. Defendant was asleep in his bedroom, and his son led the police to the bedroom, saying &#8220;He&#8217;s in here.&#8221; The knock and talk was not invalid, and the son could consent to this limited entry to talk to defendant. Perkins v. Commonwealth, 237 S.W.3d 215 (Ky. App. 2007).*<\/p>\n<p>State implied consent law was complied with, and defendant could not revoke implied consent. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.tsc.state.tn.us\/OPINIONS\/tcca\/PDF\/073\/074\/CochranMichaelOPN.pdf\">State v. Cochran<\/a>, 2007 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 785 (October 1, 2007):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>We note that to allow a defendant to consult with his attorney and revoke his consent to testing hours, days, or even weeks after a breath or blood sample is collected would essentially circumvent the firmly established rule in this state that a defendant has no right to consult with counsel before he submits to the test. See <em>State v. Frasier<\/em>, 914 S.W.2d 467, 471 (Tenn. 1996). The appellant is not entitled to relief. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Dog sniff during the pendency of a traffic stop checking records was not invalid, and reasonable suspicion was developing anyway. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.courts.mo.gov\/courts\/pubopinions.nsf\/ccd96539c3fb13ce8625661f004bc7da\/0fde674e144e3e4f8625736b005e5952?OpenDocument\">State v. Kempa<\/a>, 235 S.W.3d 54 (Mo. App. 2007).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1428\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/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-1428","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1428","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=1428"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1428\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1428"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1428"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1428"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}