The police established video surveillance of defendant’s house because of reports of drug transactions on the premises, and the video surveillance was not in violation of any of defendant’s rights. Laterza v. Commonwealth, 244 S.W.3d 754 (Ky. App. 2008).<\/p>\n
Defendant showed enough in his post-conviction petition to get a hearing on defense counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress. Going to the merits of the search issue, the court finds that defendant showed a dispute of facts that could have gone either way, and he might prevail if his version were believed. Baldwin v. State<\/a>, 145 Idaho 148, 177 P.3d 362 (2008).<\/p>\n Failure to appear arrest is within the inherent power of a court and occurs based on the direct knowledge of the judge issuing the order, so it complies with the Fourth Amendment. State v. Mohs<\/a>, 743 N.W.2d 607 (Minn. 2008).*<\/p>\n Defendant’s stop was over and he was found by the trial court free to leave when he was asked for and gave consent, and the consent is supported by the evidence (over a strong dissent). Malbrough v. Commonwealth<\/a>, 275 Va. 163; 655 S.E.2d 1 (2008).*<\/p>\n Search of a backpack on the premises was within the apparent authority of the consenter because there were no identifying marks on the backpack which would show that it belonged to someone else. Where there was an elderly person on the premises who consented, it was reasonable to conclude that an elderly person would use a backpack, too. [Right!] Glenn v. Commonwealth<\/a>, 654 S.E.2d 910 (Va. 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading