{"id":1724,"date":"2008-07-29T06:28:29","date_gmt":"2008-01-26T22:20:30","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-01-27T08:25:17","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1724","title":{"rendered":"Delaware approves hearing to see if CI would be called at suppression hearing because he saw the search"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The defendant sufficiently showed by affidavit that the CI in this case saw the arrest and search of defendant go down, so he gets a hearing to see if the CI is a witness to the case on the validity of the search. <a href=\"http:\/\/caselaw.lp.findlaw.com\/data2\/delawarestatecases\/261-2007.pdf\">McNair v. State<\/a>, 947 A.2d 1122 (Del. 2008).<\/p>\n<p>The search of defendant&#8217;s car was valid as an inventory. He was removed from the car and arrested, and handcuffed while on the ground. He was asked about whether he had a gun, and he said he did. The statement violated <em>Miranda<\/em>, but the gun comes in under the inventory exception. United States v. Campbell, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4707 (S.D. Fla. January 22, 2008).*<\/p>\n<p>Officer had probable cause to believe that defendant had a gun in the car after seeing him pull one out of his waistband and conceal it in the car, and that was justification for an automobile search. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.3dca.flcourts.org\/Opinions\/3D06-2103.pdf\">State v. Hollingshead<\/a>, 974 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 3DCA 2008).*<\/p>\n<p>An Idaho police officer had authority to require a drug test of a probationer without reasonable suspicion. Dicta: A search of his home, however, would require a probation officer to participate, but that is not an issue here. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.isc.idaho.gov\/opinions\/purdum.pdf\">State v. Purdum<\/a>, 2008 Ida. App. LEXIS 8 (January 23, 2008).*<\/p>\n<p>A 14 year old properly allowed police to enter, but an older occupant signed consent to search the premises. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.lexisone.com\/lx1\/caselaw\/freecaselaw?searchType=citation&amp;fclSearch=2008+La.+App.+LEXIS+60&amp;action=FCLSearchCaseByCitation&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;format=CITE&amp;pageNumber=1&amp;sourceID=&amp;citation=2008+La.+App.+LEXIS+60&amp;searchTerm=\">State v. Veals<\/a>, 977 So. 2d 1030 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2008), released for publication April 4, 2008.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1724\">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-1724","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1724","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=1724"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1724\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1724"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1724"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1724"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}