{"id":2139,"date":"2008-06-20T15:06:44","date_gmt":"2008-06-10T08:31:19","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-06-10T08:31:19","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2139","title":{"rendered":"Officer’s failure to show that defendant was the person CI was talking to was a failure of probable cause that even good faith exception would not save"},"content":{"rendered":"

The trial court properly granted the motion to suppress because the CI never could complete a sale from the defendant and there was no way to corroborate that the defendant was the person the CI was talking to on the telephone. Moreover, the good faith exception did not save the search. State v. Alexander<\/a>, 2008 Ohio 2665, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 2244 (8th Dist. June 2, 2008):<\/p>\n

[*P27] Here, contrary to the State’s assertion, the trial court determined whether the police had reasonable suspicion in their initial approach of Alexander, and found “that the police lacked reasonable suspicion or cause to arrest [Alexander] on November 6, 2006, or seize any property.” Upon review, we find that under the facts of this case, the trial court’s finding of lack of reasonable suspicion was proper.<\/p>\n

[*P28] In particular, the CI, with whom Detective Jones had never worked, was unable to complete any purchases from Alexander over a two-month period (including on November 6). Further, as already discussed, there was a lack of identification that Alexander was the person with whom the CI spoke on the phone.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Allegation of strip search on probation violation booking for a failure to report sufficiently stated a claim for relief to go forward. Martinez v. Warner, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44395 (E.D. Pa. June 5, 2008).*<\/p>\n

Officer had reasonable suspicion after traffic stop based on defendant’s extreme nervousness and seeing drug paraphernalia all of which indicated she likely was under the influence at the time of the stop. State v. Wilson<\/a>, 2008 Ohio 2742, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 2300 (3d Dist. June 9, 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-2139","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2139","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=2139"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2139\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2139"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2139"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2139"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}