{"id":1684,"date":"2008-01-12T07:50:34","date_gmt":"2008-01-12T06:45:50","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-01-12T06:45:50","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1684","title":{"rendered":"Search of room 15′ away from arrest was outside scope of search incident"},"content":{"rendered":"

At the time of defendant’s arrest, a valid protective sweep was conducted. After the arrest, officers searched defendant’s laundry room, outside of the area of immediate control, and it was an invalid search incident. State v. Janiak<\/a>, 2008 Wisc. App. LEXIS 13 (January 8, 2008):<\/p>\n

P11 We therefore conclude Morrisey’s search of Janiak’s laundry room was unreasonable. He did not search the room in which Janiak was arrested. At the time Morrisey conducted his search, it was not protective in nature, as Thomson had already confirmed the house was clear and no weapon was within Janiak’s reach. Further, the laundry room was not within Janiak’s “immediate control.” Rather, it was ten to fifteen feet from where he was arrested–close, but not within arm’s reach.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

One partner has no standing to challenge an alleged Fourth Amendment violation of the other. Trolley Boats v. City of Holly Hill, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95546 (M.D. Fla. January 7, 2007):<\/p>\n

An individual has no standing to assert a Fourth Amendment violation unless he “has a cognizable property interest in the place or thing searched, \u2026 [or] was present at the time of the search.” United States v. Hunt<\/em>, 505 F.2d 931, 938 (5th Cir. 1974). Accordingly, the fact that one business partner’s Fourth Amendment rights are violated does not give a different partner standing to challenge the violation “solely on the basis of the partnership relation.” Id<\/em>. at 939. Moreover, a mere financial interest in property searched or seized does not create standing to assert a Fourth Amendment violation. United States v. McConnell<\/em>, 500 F.2d 347, 348 (5th Cir. 1974).<\/p><\/blockquote>\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-1684","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1684","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=1684"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1684\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1684"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1684"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1684"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}