{"id":2163,"date":"2008-12-23T16:43:41","date_gmt":"2008-06-17T08:33:36","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-06-17T08:33:36","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2163","title":{"rendered":"Consent to search for a person did not permit seizure of baggie in a shoe in a closet as plain view"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant’s consent to search for his brother in the house did not support the finding of drugs and crack that were secreted. Here, the court recognized that secreting money in a “less secure neighborhood” was indicative of nothing. State v. Riley<\/a>, 2008 Ohio 2896, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 2406 (2d Dist. June 13, 2008):<\/p>\n

[*P33] Even if Officer Jones was properly engaged in a search for firearms when he looked in the closet, his testimony that he saw what appeared to be a tennis shoe, but “not … real clearly,” with a plastic baggie partially out of the shoe, falls short of establishing that the incriminating character of the object was immediately apparent to him. He did not testify that he observed the crack cocaine in the baggie before he retrieved the baggie from the shoe. As for the money found under the liner in the trash can, even if Jones was properly engaged in a search for firearms at that time, there was nothing in his testimony, absent the prior, unlawful recovery of the crack cocaine, from which he could reasonably have determined that the money was either contraband or evidence of criminal conduct. It is easy to imagine innocent motives for hiding money in a place like underneath a trash can liner even in better neighborhoods, let alone in less secure neighborhoods.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Prosecutor’s review of search warrant materials was not enough to show that the prosecutor was complicit in any failures of the application of the warrant or the warrant. Mink v. Knox, 566 F. Supp. 2d 1217 (D. Colo. 2008).*<\/p>\n

Owner of home had authority to consent to a search of a loft area which was accessible by all. State v. Jefferson<\/a>, 2008 Ohio 2888, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 2416 (2d Dist. June 13, 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-2163","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2163","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=2163"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2163\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2163"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2163"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2163"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}