{"id":2074,"date":"2008-06-22T07:14:59","date_gmt":"2008-05-12T04:38:16","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-05-12T04:38:16","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2074","title":{"rendered":"Hospital security officers were not &#8220;state actors&#8221;"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Hospital security officers were at the emergency room assisting with a gunshot victim brought to the hospital in a car. One asked about whether there was a gun in the car, and the driver said there was. He asked the driver to get out of and step away from the car. He searched the car and located a gun. This search was not state action. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sconet.state.oh.us\/rod\/docs\/pdf\/2\/2008\/2008-ohio-2231.pdf\">State v. Buford<\/a>, 2008 Ohio 2231, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 1918 (2d Dist. May 9, 2008).*<\/p>\n<p>When drugs were found during an inventory of defendant&#8217;s car, a further search of the car was justified under the automobile exception. There is no &#8220;special exigency&#8221; or &#8220;separate exigency&#8221; requirement for the automobile exception. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.judicial.state.ia.us\/Supreme_Court\/Recent_Opinions\/20080509\/06-1507.pdf\">State v. Allensworth<\/a>, 748 N.W.2d 789 n.4 (Iowa 2008):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>We use the term &#8220;special exigency&#8221; to refer to some circumstance beyond the inherent mobility of the vehicle that makes it impossible or impractical for the police to obtain a search warrant prior to the vehicle being moved away. <em>United States v. Graham<\/em>, 275 F.3d 490, 509-10 (6th Cir. 2001) (noting the Supreme Court &#8220;has emphasized that no special exigency is required to conduct a warrantless search of an automobile when the car is mobile and the searching officer has probable cause to believe that fruits of a crime may be present in the automobile&#8221;). The Supreme Court has alternatively used the phrase &#8220;separate exigency&#8221; to refer to the same concept. See <a href=\"http:\/\/www.lexisone.com\/lx1\/caselaw\/freecaselaw?searchType=citation&amp;fclSearch=527+u.s.+465&amp;action=FCLSearchCaseByCitation&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;format=CITE&amp;pageNumber=1&amp;sourceID=&amp;citation=527+u.s.+465&amp;searchTerm=\"><em>Maryland v. Dyson<\/em><\/a>, 527 U.S. 465, 467, 119 S. Ct. 2013, 2014, 144 L. Ed. 2d 442, 445 (1999) (&#8220;[T]he &#8216;automobile exception&#8217; has no separate exigency requirement.&#8221;). <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Ten minute traffic stop was not unreasonable while questions about travel were asked. Defendant validly consented. United States v. Carvajal-Mora, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37455 (N.D. Okla. May 7, 2008):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>An officer conducting a traffic stop may request a driver&#8217;s license, vehicle registration, run a computer check, and issue a citation.  &#8230; An officer may also &#8220;ask questions about the motorist&#8217;s travel plans and authority to operate the vehicle&#8221; in addition to obtaining the relevant documentation. &#8230; According to Turner, the traffic stop lasted approximately ten minutes from the time of the stop to defendant&#8217;s arrest and Crivello&#8217;s testimony suggests it may have been shorter. Crivello asked defendant to produce his license and the vehicle&#8217;s registration and return with Crivello to his patrol car. He also asked defendant questions about his travel plans and criminal history. Defendant consented to a search of the vehicle and, even if the search exceeded the scope of the initial traffic stop, defendant&#8217;s consent permitted them to extend the length of the detention without violating the Fourth Amendment. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2074\">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-2074","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2074","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=2074"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2074\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2074"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2074"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2074"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}