{"id":2830,"date":"2009-07-12T13:52:48","date_gmt":"2009-01-03T09:21:13","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-01-03T09:21:13","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2830","title":{"rendered":"WI: SI permitted search of eyeglasses case found below driver&#8217;s door after stop"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>An eyeglass case on the ground below the driver&#8217;s door was subject to search incident under the circumstances. While a search incident is presumed unreasonable, the facts here showed an officer alone on the highway with two persons detained, and a potential weapon involved. The court sensitively analyzes the search incident rationale in detail on these facts. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.wicourts.gov\/sc\/opinion\/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&amp;seqNo=35055\">State v. Denk<\/a>, 2008 WI 130, 315 Wis. 2d 5, 758 N.W.2d 775 (2008):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>[*P61]  We determine that the warrantless search here was incident to the arrest and was supported by both of the historical rationales at the heart of that exception, namely the safety of the arresting officer and the need to discover and preserve evidence. In this situation, Office Hahn was outnumbered at a late night arrest involving two men and knew that narcotics were present. The proximity of the eyeglass case to the car, to Denk, and to Pickering, as well as its unexplained location at Denk&#8217;s feet, raised questions about the danger Denk posed acting alone or in concert with Pickering. Thus, we conclude that based on the reasoning in <a href=\"http:\/\/www.wicourts.gov\/sc\/opinion\/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&amp;seqNo=17382\">State v. Pallone<\/a>, the search of the eyeglass case was a permissible search incident to the arrest of the driver of the vehicle.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Defendant urged police to search his car to prove that he did not have a stolen high powered rifle in the trunk (which he did).  That was sufficient for the court to find consent. United States v. Clinton, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104927 (N.D. Ind. December 30, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2830\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/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-2830","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2830","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=2830"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2830\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2830"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2830"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2830"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}