{"id":3120,"date":"2009-12-23T08:32:18","date_gmt":"2009-05-06T06:00:32","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-05-06T06:00:32","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3120","title":{"rendered":"TX3: Two trash searches were more likely of defendant’s stuff than one search"},"content":{"rendered":"

The search warrant for defendant’s snowmobile involved in a hit-and-run was valid. It was seen from defendant’s driveway during the investigation. “Defendant cannot argue that this search was illegal simply because his driveway causes a visitor to travel deeper onto his property than other driveways.” State v. Mosner<\/a>, 407 N.J. Super. 40, 969 A.2d 487 (2009).*<\/p>\n

Seeing defendant remove a gun from his waist and put it in his truck was, “at a minimum, reasonable suspicion to believe that defendant unlawfully possessed a weapon.” People v. Littleton<\/a>, 62 A.D.3d 1267, 878 N.Y.S.2d 540 (4th Dept. 2009).*<\/p>\n

Two trash searches were barely enough to get a search warrant for defendant’s property. Considering deference given a SW, it was enough. Here, it was combined with years’ old information from a CI, and that part was insufficient. Accurately describing the cars parked outside is an observation anybody could make. Flores v. State<\/a>, 287 S.W.3d 307 (Tex. App. \u2014 Austin 2009):<\/p>\n

The garbage container in which Farkas found the marihuana residue was sitting in front of the suspect premises, but it was also in or beside a city street and accessible to any neighbor or passer-by. Neither appellant nor Wardell was seen placing the garbage bags in question, or any other trash, in the container, and there was no other statement of fact in the affidavit suggesting a connection between the marihuana residue found in the garbage and either appellant, Wardell, or the suspect premises. On the other hand, the fact that Farkas found marihuana residue in the trash container outside the residence at 1920 Ramona Circle on two different occasions suggests that the incriminating material had not been placed there by a neighbor or some passer-by, but that it actually came from inside the house. The situation is analogous to the “doctrine of chances,” which states that unusual events are unlikely to repeat themselves inadvertently or by happenstance. See Martin v. State, 173 S.W.3d 463, 467 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also 2 John Wigmore, Evidence \u00a7 302 (Chadbourn rev. 1979). This presents a very close question, but keeping in mind the deference that is due the magistrate’s determination of probable cause, we conclude that the affidavit gave the magistrate a substantial basis for concluding that there was probable cause to search the premises for marihuana.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

When there is consent, there is no need for probable cause. The trial court’s finding of consent is supported by the record. State v. McCambridge<\/a>, 2009 Ohio 2021, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 1678 (5th Dist. April 27, 2009).*<\/p>\n

Letters in a padlocked closet were within the scope of the search warrant which included papers. The trial court erred in finding that they were not in plain view. State v. Richardson<\/a>, 2009 Ohio 2020, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 1681 (5th Dist. April 27, 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-3120","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3120","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=3120"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3120\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3120"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3120"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3120"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}