{"id":1861,"date":"2009-02-14T09:42:44","date_gmt":"2008-03-09T00:08:22","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-03-08T17:13:15","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1861","title":{"rendered":"Shoes can be searched in a search incident"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Search incident could extend to defendant&#8217;s shoes under <a href=\"http:\/\/caselaw.lp.findlaw.com\/scripts\/getcase.pl?court=us&amp;vol=415&amp;invol=800\"><em>United States v. Edwards<\/em><\/a>. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sconet.state.oh.us\/rod\/docs\/pdf\/6\/2008\/2008-ohio-980.pdf\">State v. Pinkelton<\/a>, 2008 Ohio 980, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 837 (6th Dist. March 7, 2008).<\/p>\n<p>Feeling 17 bags of crack in defendant&#8217;s pocket was not justified under plain feel. Defendant was lawfully stopped because he matched the description of a robbery suspect and was found in the area. The initial patdown was valid, but the plain feel was not. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sconet.state.oh.us\/rod\/docs\/pdf\/8\/2008\/2008-ohio-963.pdf\">State v. Tucker<\/a>, 2008 Ohio 963, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 820 (8th Dist. March 6, 2008)*:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>[*P17]  However, in order to justify the seizure of the drugs, the State had to present some evidence that its incriminating nature was &#8220;immediately apparent&#8221; to the searching officer. There is no such evidence. The officer simply testified that &#8220;as we were searching [defendant] we found 17 bags of rock crack cocaine, and we found a bundle of plastic baggies in his right rear pocket.&#8221; This is insufficient to satisfy the plain feel exception. See <em>State v. Bey<\/em>, Cuyahoga App. No. 86234, 2005 Ohio 5842. Contrary to the State&#8217;s assertion, the record reflects that defendant was not under arrest at the time the officers conducted the patdown search for weapons. Accordingly, the seizure cannot be justified as being a search incident to a lawful arrest. The second assignment of error is sustained.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Defense counsel was not ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress that was [so frivilous that it was] bound to fail because of lack of standing.  Defendant was on the property to make drugs, and that was his only connection. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.isc.idaho.gov\/opinions\/lint.pdf\">Lint v. State<\/a>, 145 Idaho 472, 180 P.3d 511 (App. 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1861\">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-1861","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1861","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=1861"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1861\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1861"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1861"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1861"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}