Single room occupancy buildings are not a closely regulated industry to which the city can continually enter under an administrative search exception. San Joaquin Motel & Hotel Propery Owners Ass’n v. City of Stockton, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91766 (E.D. Cal. June 18, 2008).*<\/p>\n
A motion to suppress establishes a defendant’s claim that he is an aggrieved party of the search at issue, and the state does not have to prove that. People v. Jorlantin<\/a>, 2008 Colo. LEXIS 1002 (November 10, 2008).*<\/p>\n Brooks v. State, 292 Ga. App. 445, 664 S.E.2d 827 (2008), posted here<\/a>, had state cert granted, Brooks v. State, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 95 (November 3, 2008): <\/p>\n This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:<\/p>\n Whether the State must demonstrate “reasonable grounds” to justify a search or seizure despite the existence of a validly imposed condition of probation or parole that prospectively waived the probationer or parolee’s Fourth Amendment rights.<\/p>\n If so, whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that under the facts of this case, the police had “reasonable grounds” to conduct the search.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading