{"id":1977,"date":"2008-06-21T09:17:38","date_gmt":"2008-04-11T22:40:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-04-12T04:54:43","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1977","title":{"rendered":"MA: “Well being check” was criminal investigatory search, and it was suppressed"},"content":{"rendered":"

State’s argument failed that an emergency well-being check or exigent circumstances justified the officer looking into defendant’s trunk which was left open after defendant was told to back away from it. This was a criminal investigatory search, so these grounds did not apply. Commonwealth v. Knowles<\/a>, 451 Mass. 91, 883 N.E.2d 941 (2008):<\/p>\n

There is no objective basis present here for believing that the defendant’s well-being or the safety of the public was in immediate jeopardy. Any objective view of the actions of the officer leads to the conclusion that he was in fact conducting a criminal investigation. After arriving at the scene, he quickly seized Knowles, made no inquiry about his well-being, and as soon as other officers arrived and took charge of Knowles, he proceeded to examine the contents of the open trunk for evidence of criminal activity. Indeed, the officer himself never justified [*10] his seizure of the defendant on the ground that he was acting in his community caretaking capacity.<\/p>\n

Similarly, there is no objective basis for believing that the officer was confronted with an emergency situation. “The need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is justification for what would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency.” Mincey v. Arizona<\/em><\/a>, 437 U.S. 385, 392, 98 S. Ct. 2408, 57 L. Ed. 2d 290 (1978), quoting Wayne v. United States<\/em>, 115 U.S. App. D.C. 234, 318 F.2d 205, 212 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied<\/em>, 375 U.S. 860, 84 S. Ct. 125, 11 L. Ed. 2d 86 (1963) (opinion of Burger, J.). …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Defendant’s parole search was valid under Samson<\/em><\/a>, despite the fact that it was a home visit and without reasonable suspicion. United States v. Justiniano, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27709 (W.D. N.Y. March 20, 2008).*<\/p>\n

Computer search warrant’s self-imposed condition of forensic examination of the computer by a certain date did not prohibit the police from seeking a new warrant as the time expired. People v. Strauss<\/a>, 180 P.3d 1027 (Colo. 2008).*<\/p>\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-1977","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1977","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=1977"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1977\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1977"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1977"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1977"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}