{"id":1863,"date":"2008-12-08T00:13:20","date_gmt":"2008-03-10T06:28:31","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-03-10T06:28:31","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1863","title":{"rendered":"VI: Independent source doctrine overcame <em>Miranda<\/em> violation"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Defendant was arrested without probable cause and should have been Mirandized before he made a statement. A citizen&#8217;s report of the smell of a decomposing body had been separately received, and that produced the body. People v. Castillo, 49 V.I. 195 (2008):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>From the circumstances presented, the Court finds beyond cavil that law enforcement would have inevitably discovered and did in fact independently discover Laquina Hennis&#8217; body. Although the officers had searched the 8th Street structure(s) several times, a citizen&#8217;s report on April 11, 2007, complaining of a stench emanating from the shed adjacent to the dwelling occupied by the Defendant, led to the officers&#8217; return and subsequent recovery of the body. It was therefore only a matter of time before the victim&#8217;s body would have been inevitably, but independently found, particularly given that the investigation of the missing child involved multiple agencies from territorial and federal levels.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Vehicle frisk was valid under <a href=\"http:\/\/caselaw.lp.findlaw.com\/scripts\/getcase.pl?navby=case&amp;court=us&amp;vol=392&amp;page=1\"><em>Long<\/em><\/a>, and raising <a href=\"http:\/\/caselaw.lp.findlaw.com\/scripts\/getcase.pl?court=us&amp;vol=000&amp;invol=03-5165\"><em>Thornton<\/em><\/a> was a &#8220;red herring.&#8221; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca1.uscourts.gov\/pdf.opinions\/06-2378-01A.pdf\">United States v. Diaz<\/a>, 519 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2008):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>We refuse to pursue the red herring of <em>Thornton<\/em> dangled by Diaz. The Supreme Court&#8217;s opinion in Thornton, regarding the lawfulness of vehicular searches incident to arrest, does nothing to abrogate the limited vehicular &#8220;frisk&#8221; permitted during a <em>Terry<\/em> stop by <em>Long<\/em> and its progeny. Indeed, the majority&#8217;s reasoning in Thornton only strengthens the rationale for the type of search conducted in this case. If officer safety concerns justify the search of a vehicle&#8217;s passenger compartment where the vehicle&#8217;s occupant had exited the vehicle before being confronted by police and was arrested, handcuffed, and secured in the backseat of a police car, surely safety concerns justify the same search where the vehicle&#8217;s occupant was only temporarily detained under Terry and may imminently regain control of the vehicle and its contents. Thus, the district court properly denied Diaz&#8217;s motion to suppress the firearm and ammunition found in the vehicle.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Defendant raised a search issue in his state case, lost on standing, and then pled guilty one day into trial, and that was a waiver of the Fourth Amendment claim. He filed a state post-conviction petition challenging the search as an IAC claim. He had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his search claim under <em>Stone<\/em>. Chippolla v. Valdez, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17501 (D. Idaho March 6, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1863\">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-1863","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1863","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=1863"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1863\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1863"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1863"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1863"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}