Defendant rented his hotel room under a known alias of his for which he had an ID card. That gave him standing. The exigency of sex trafficking a minor justified the officer\u2019s warrantless entry, and it\u2019s apparent there was probable cause for obtaining a search warrant later without resort to what was found in the room. United States v. Hudson, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3096 (E.D.Mich. Jan. 10, 2017).<\/p>\n
Crossing over the fog line is not necessarily an offense. \u201cRegardless, the State has misconstrued Smith. In that case, our supreme court held that crossing over a fog line, unlike crossing over a double yellow line, \u2018does not create an offense that always may be discerned simply by observation.\u2019 Smith, 484 S.W.3d 393 at 403. The court specifically rejected that an officer’s observing a motorist cross over a fog line gives the officer probable cause to stop the vehicle and held that \u2018the totality of the circumstances may provide a reasonable suspicion sufficient to initiate a traffic stop to investigate the possible violation.\u2019 Id. at 410.\u201d Summarily denying the motion to suppress was error. State v. Eskridge<\/a>, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 24 (Jan. 17, 2017).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant rented his hotel room under a known alias of his for which he had an ID card. That gave him standing. The exigency of sex trafficking a minor justified the officer\u2019s warrantless entry, and it\u2019s apparent there was probable … Continue reading