{"id":2832,"date":"2009-02-10T08:07:19","date_gmt":"2009-01-04T12:04:44","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-01-04T12:04:44","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2832","title":{"rendered":"NY4: Fire scene search by deputy sheriff violated Fourth Amendment"},"content":{"rendered":"

Fire scene search by deputy sheriff after fire was extinguished was a criminal search unrelated to the fire, and it was suppressed. People v. Christianson<\/a>, 2008 NY Slip Op 10269, 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10026 (4th Dept. December 31, 2008):<\/p>\n

At the time the Sheriff’s Deputy arrived at defendant’s home, the fire officials had extinguished the blaze, ventilated the home, and determined the origin of the fire. Moreover, the Fire Chief testified at the suppression hearing that he called for the Sheriff’s Deputy to investigate other safety concerns, such as the locked interior door and boarded-up windows. Those concerns, however, did not pose an immediate threat to defendant and thus do not fall within the purview of the emergency exception to the warrant requirement (see generally People v Molnar, 98 NY2d 328, 332; People v Mitchell, 39 NY2d 173, 177-178, cert denied 426 U.S. 953).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The issue was really just one of consent, not fruit of the poisonous tree. State v. Melton<\/a>, 2008 Iowa App. LEXIS 1296 (December 31, 2008):<\/p>\n

In Bergmann our supreme court held that even if an initial pat-down search were illegal, marijuana discovered as a result of a subsequent search based on probable cause and exigent circumstances was not subject to suppression as fruit of the poisonous tree because there was no link between the pat-down and the subsequent search. Id. at 333, 338. The only incriminating evidence seized from Melton was marijuana found not during the pat-down search, but instead found during a later search to which Melton consented. Melton does not question the nature or character of that consent, or claim that it was involuntary.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Finding of one joint was not the entire basis of a search warrant for defendant’s house. Other things she said contributed to it. State v. Gdovin<\/a>, 2008 ME 195, 961 A.2d 1099 (December 30, 2008).*<\/p>\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-2832","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2832","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=2832"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2832\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2832"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2832"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2832"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}