{"id":3008,"date":"2009-03-24T14:45:16","date_gmt":"2009-03-17T04:12:17","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-03-17T05:28:31","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3008","title":{"rendered":"MO: Defendant gave consent for officers to enter to look for marijuana pipe; consent was not limited"},"content":{"rendered":"

Police did a knock-and-talk on defendant’s house, but she declined entry. After talking to her for a few minutes, they talked her into letting them in to look for a marijuana pipe for which they would only write a ticket. She wanted to go get it alone and leave them outside, but they insisted on coming along to protect against destruction of evidence [which had not yet been revealed]. In the bedroom she produced the pipe, but the officer insisted on searching the dresser drawers for marijuana. She relented. The consent was valid and not limited up to that point. State v. Allen<\/a>, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 283 (February 5, 2009)*:<\/p>\n

An objective observer would find that the officers entered the apartment to ensure their safety and prevent the destruction of the marijuana pipe and only asked for consent to search additional areas of the apartment as the circumstances changed. We do not, nor can we, divine an ulterior motive on the part of Officer Clawson in her request for consent to search first the drawer and then the apartment. The trial court did not err in finding the consent to be voluntarily given. After Rig was given Miranda warnings and told she had a right to refuse the consent, she gave a free and voluntary consent. The consent was not conditional or limited. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Defendant was unlawfully stopped without RS by the large number of officers that stopped him. No person would feel free to leave after being stopped by multiple police cars. State v. Acy<\/a>, 2009 Ohio 1075, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 880 (8th Dist. March 12, 2009).*<\/p>\n

The state showed apparent authority for the defendant’s girlfriend to consent to a search of their property from which he had been excluded by an order of protection. State v. Rodgers<\/a>, 2009 Ohio 961, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 846 (8th Dist. March 5, 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-3008","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3008","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=3008"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3008\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3008"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3008"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3008"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}