{"id":3007,"date":"2009-05-04T06:42:36","date_gmt":"2009-03-17T04:00:54","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-03-17T05:10:49","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3007","title":{"rendered":"OK: Sounds of hiding evidence was not exigency of sounds of destruction"},"content":{"rendered":"

The state failed to show that exigency required the entry of defendant’s property to protect against destruction of seized property. Sounds of hiding evidence is not enough. Burton v. State<\/a>, 2009 OK CR 10, 204 P.3d 772 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009):<\/p>\n

[*P11] In this case, there was no evidence presented at the suppression hearing or trial suggesting that unless the police entered the residence when they did, Burton would either escape or destroy evidence. To the contrary, the record shows that officers were not particularly concerned that evidence might be destroyed. Specifically, the officer in charge at the scene testified at the suppression hearing that the sounds reported coming from inside the house caused him to believe that evidence was only being hidden or concealed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Defendants pulled off of I-70 to avoid a ruse checkpoint. They pulled into a truck stop and stopped the car and started to get out of the car before it stopped moving. The officer yelled at them three times to stop before they did. They were excessively nervous and RS developed from that based on their unusual travel plans. After the dog alert, it took over 20 minutes before a search ensued, but it was reasonable because the investigation was progressing. State v. Woods<\/a>, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 317 (March 10, 2009).*<\/p>\n

A CI with 100 prior uses by the police made a controlled buy off the defendant out of his business. The police had PC to enter and conduct a search incident, which they did, but the buy money was not found on him. That permitted them to open the cash register, and the buy money was located there. State v. Goss<\/a>, 2009 Ohio 1074, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 855 (8th Dist. March 12, 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-3007","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3007","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=3007"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3007\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3007"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3007"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3007"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}