{"id":2962,"date":"2009-07-12T13:43:43","date_gmt":"2009-02-22T09:17:54","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-02-22T09:17:54","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2962","title":{"rendered":"IA: Parole agreement permitted suspicionless searches under Samson<\/em>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant’s parole agreement provided for suspicionless searches, and that was valid under Samson<\/a>. State v. Ochoa<\/a>, 765 N.W.2d 607 (Iowa App. 2009).*<\/p>\n

Defendant’s wife had apparent authority to consent even though defendant padlocked the door to the storage area a couple of days before she consented. People v. Shover<\/a>, 2009 Colo. App. LEXIS 212 (February 19, 2009)*:<\/p>\n

The Randolph<\/a> majority pointed out that “[t]he constant element in assessing Fourth Amendment reasonableness in the consent cases, then, is the great significance given to widely shared social expectations, which are naturally enough influenced by the law of property, but not controlled by its rules.” 547 U.S. at 111. Thus, the padlock Shover installed a few days before the search is less important than the “commonly held understanding about the authority that co-inhabitants may exercise in ways that affect each other’s interests.” Id. The first officer’s reliance on the wife’s invitation to enter the residence reflected the societal “understand[ing] that any one [co-owner or co-tenant] may admit visitors, with the consequences that a guest obnoxious to one may nevertheless be admitted in his absence by another,” and the chance of a contrary arrangement “is too remote to expect visitors to investigate a particular household’s rules before accepting an invitation to come in.” Id. at 111-12. Hence, applying the exclusionary rule here would not further its purpose of deterring police misconduct. White, 64 P.3d at 872.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The shed was logically included in the definition of the place to be searched because it was only inches away or even attached to the mobile home described in the warrant. State v. Brewer<\/a>, 148 Wn. App. 666, 205 P.3d 900 (2009)*:<\/p>\n

\u00b635 The adjacent shed appeared to be part of Defendants’ mobile home residence both (1) when Detective Boardman procured and the superior court issued the search warrant and (2) at the time of the pretrial suppression hearing when the trial court considered the legality of the warrant and the search. The issue of whether the adjacent shed was actually attached to the mobile home, or technically separated by mere inches, did not arise until later at trial when the State introduced Exhibit 36, a photograph that showed a slight space between the mobile home’s outerwall and the adjacent shed. Thus, when the officers executed the search warrant, they understood the adjacent shed to be part of the mobile home described in the warrant, as did the mobile home’s owner.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

A domestic violence call of an uncle and nephew did not provide evidence that an assault occurred within four hours, and the officer’s staying on the premises was not justified. State v. Williams<\/a>, 148 Wn. App. 678 (February 10, 2009).*<\/p>\n

Stop was not an unreasonable detention. But, even if it was, it was based on reasonable suspicion. United States v. Brown<\/a>, 310 Fed. Appx. 776 (6th Cir. 2009).*<\/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-2962","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2962","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=2962"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2962\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2962"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2962"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2962"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}