The protective sweep of the house before actual arrival of the search warrant was valid because an additional person stuck a head out the window when the officers first knocked, and they had to be sure there wasn\u2019t another. [Since the warrant had issued, what difference does that make?] The search warrant was for drugs, it wasn\u2019t overbroad, and things were found in plain view. United States v. Benedict, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21301 (D.Alaska February 13, 2015).* However, \u201c[h]ere, it is difficult to reason how a videotape discovered in the children’s bedroom can reasonably be considered to \u2018relat[e] to illegal transactions involving a controlled substance or use,\u2019 as defined by the search warrant. Thus, Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence at Docket 82 is GRANTED as to the videotape.\u201d United States v. Benedict, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20977 (D.Alaska February 23, 2015).<\/p>\n
Driving 13 mph in a 25 zone at 2:30 am was reason for a stop. State v. Nunez<\/a>, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 163 (February 23, 2015).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The protective sweep of the house before actual arrival of the search warrant was valid because an additional person stuck a head out the window when the officers first knocked, and they had to be sure there wasn\u2019t another. [Since … Continue reading