Officer was called to assist a woman in getting her car license back from the defendant. The officer’s admission into the defendant’s residence was impliedly authorized by another woman there who said defendant was inside and turned and headed in with the officer following. United States v. Goncalves, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39671 (N.D. N.Y. May 15, 2008):<\/p>\n
In this case, the Court finds, based on the totality of all the circumstances, that when Stacey Goncalves, in response to Officer Coyle’s inquiry as to where defendant was, stated that defendant was inside, turned around and entered the house without further explanation or instruction, and left the doors open behind her, she impliedly consented to the officers’ entry into the house for the purpose of locating defendant. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Younger<\/em> abstention correctly applied to a \u00a7 1983 action filed before plaintiff was charged in state court and the search issue was subject to resolution in the state court action. Michel v. City of Akron<\/a>, 278 Fed. Appx. 477, 2008 FED App. 0259N (6th Cir. 2008) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n
CI has been corroborated by the officers in a months-long investigation, and the officer had probable cause for the stop and search. United States v. Pender, 554 F. Supp. 2d 289 (N.D. N.Y. 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading