Search incident included a search under a bed near where the defendant was arrested, and cocaine was found there. The court rejects protective sweep under the bed as an alternative. United States v. Bohannon, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65446 (D. Conn. April 28, 2017).<\/p>\n
The court credits the officer\u2019s testimony, albeit not shown in the video, that defendant crossed the center line before the stop. The length of the stop was not unreasonable, all things considered. United States v. Prado, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66109 (M.D. Pa. May 1, 2017).*<\/p>\n
The Idaho Parole Board didn\u2019t have the authority to impose this search condition. Telling a person that the police were going in meant the entry wasn\u2019t by consent. United States v. Thomas, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66609 (D. Idaho May 1, 2017).* [Query: if the Fourth Amendment governs cases in federal court, does it really matter what state law said? Yes, the Parole Board\u2019s power is vital in state court, but not likely federal court.]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Search incident included a search under a bed near where the defendant was arrested, and cocaine was found there. The court rejects protective sweep under the bed as an alternative. United States v. Bohannon, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65446 (D. … Continue reading