{"id":2328,"date":"2008-12-24T09:51:29","date_gmt":"2008-08-05T07:05:57","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-08-05T07:17:35","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2328","title":{"rendered":"CA10: Encounter at airport baggage claim was consensual"},"content":{"rendered":"

Encounter in the baggage claim area was not shown to be coercive, even though defendant was asked to go to a police office in the airport. Defendant’s “post-9\/11” argument that airport security is tougher and more coercive is rejected. United States v. Davis<\/a>, 286 Fed. Appx. 574 (10th Cir. 2008)* (unpublished) (Comment:<\/em> An objective review of the facts leads me to conclude, having not seen the record of the hearing, that defendant was coerced into being moved from one place to another.)<\/p>\n

Exigent circumstances of a burglary investigation with a kicked in door and a request to look for intruders did not cease when the officer came outside once and then decided to go back in for a further look. United States v. $291,828.00 in United States Currency<\/a>, 536 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2008):<\/p>\n

Braddy’s entire theory of unlawful search rests on the fact that Gent walked outside after the “quick walk” through and then, with a second officer, re-entered the premises to make sure there was no intruder present. Braddy does not dispute that he requested a police officer be sent to his home for this very purpose. However, Braddy seemingly wants this court to adopt a bright line as to how thoroughly officers may look for an intruder under these circumstances. Under Braddy’s arguments, had Gent waited just inside the “kicked in” back door, exigent circumstances would still be in place. Similarly, had Gent heard and\/or seen an intruder and walked outside to make sure he had back-up before attempting an arrest, exigent circumstances would no longer exist and he would have had to wait for a warrant to reenter the home. The court cannot draw such a bright line for when exigent circumstances cease to exist. <\/p>\n

Given the unique and unusual facts of this case, we find that the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment did not instantaneously cease upon Gent walking outside.<\/p><\/blockquote>\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-2328","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2328","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=2328"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2328\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2328"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2328"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2328"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}