Defendant’s failing a probation UA justified a probation search of his premises. United States v. Crews, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13360 (W.D. Pa. February 20, 2009).<\/p>\n
Seventh Circuit jail strip search law is well settled, and the fact the Eleventh Circuit questioned in 2008 one of the Seventh Circuit’s leading case does not mean that the Seventh Circuit will change its position. Young v. County of Cook, 598 F. Supp. 2d 854 (N.D. Ill. 2009).*<\/p>\n
Defendant’s girlfriend having the security code to get into defendant’s storage building showed that she had apparent authority to consent to a search. United States v. Burcham, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13619 (W.D. Tenn. February 19, 2009).*<\/p>\n
Officers investigating a shooting call and seeing a vehicle leave which matched the description given had authority to enter to check on others. United States v. Thomas, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13395 (D. V.I. February 18, 2009)*:<\/p>\n
The Court notes that there exists an expectation of privacy as to the area surrounding a residence or home. Chun Yen Chiu, 857 F. Supp. at 359; see Payton v. New York<\/a>, 445 U.S. 573, 589-90, 100 S. Ct. 1371, 63 L. Ed. 2d 639 (1980); Oliver v. United States<\/a>, 466 U.S. 170, 180, 104 S. Ct. 1735, 80 L. Ed. 2d 214 (1984); United States v. Velasquez, 626 F.2d. 314, 316-317 (3d Cir. 1980). However, police officers were justified in conducting a protective sweep around the outside of the residence at 6-6 Catherine’s Rest during which they saw the marijuana plants and firearm in plain view. The Supreme Court established that officers may conduct a protective sweep when \u201cthe searching officer \u2018possessed a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warranted the officer in believing\u2019 that the area swept harbored an individual posing a danger to the officer or others.\u201d Maryland v. Buie<\/a>, 494 U.S. 325, 327, 110 S. Ct. 1093, 108 L. Ed. 2d 276 (1990); see United States v. Morgan, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15905 at *21 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 20, 2000).<\/p>\n
Considering the facts that one individual had been shot and another had come running from behind the house, it was reasonable for officers to believe that another person may be located around the residence and may either pose an additional threat or be in need of assistance. Because the officers’ protective sweep of the area outside of the residence was a reasonable means of ensuring that no potentially dangerous and unknown individuals were in the vicinity, the Court finds it permissible under the Fourth Amendment. Morgan, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15905 at 22; see Coolidge v. New Hampshire<\/a>, 403 U.S. 443, 465, 91 S. Ct. 2022, 29 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1971).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading