{"id":3210,"date":"2009-12-23T17:04:52","date_gmt":"2009-06-27T07:21:06","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-06-27T07:21:06","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3210","title":{"rendered":"SD: Nexus shown for SW for a computer by inference"},"content":{"rendered":"

The state showed nexus to a computer as a means of communication about concealing an affair where the affair was motive for murder. There was no direct evidence that a computer was used, but it was a reasonable inference. Guthrie v. Weber<\/a>, 2009 SD 42, 767 N.W.2d 539 (2009):<\/p>\n

[*P18] Therefore, the fact that the affidavit did not specifically state that Christensen and Guthrie corresponded by or with the use of a computer does not require us to declare that it was unreasonable for the issuing judge to infer that the computer would be a means of communication between Guthrie and Christensen. This affidavit provided a sufficient nexus between the crime and potential evidence on the computer, when considered in the totality of circumstances, mindful of the preference for searches conducted with a warrant. To conclude otherwise, to hold that the affidavit was insufficient to establish the narrow question whether there was sufficient probable cause for a “conspiracy,” or to rule that only paper correspondence could be seized, would be to read the affidavit in a hyper-technical manner, a position we have consistently rejected. …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Defendant was stopped for a traffic offense, and he consented early into the stop while the computer checks were being done, so it was not a prolonged stop. Proctor v. State<\/a>, 298 Ga. App. 388, 680 S.E.2d 493 (2009).*<\/p>\n

Police went to defendant’s home to do a knock-and-talk about drug use around children. Defendant came out and smelled of marijuana. He fled back into his house and the police followed, and the entry was supported by exigent circumstances. Minor v. State<\/a>, 298 Ga. App. 391, 680 S.E.2d 459 (2009).*<\/p>\n

Defendant was stopped for speeding, had all the windows down in the rain, and made a furtive movement toward the center console and was on parole for a weapons offense. The officer then asked for consent to search and got it. State v. Fykes<\/a>, 2009 Ohio 2926, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 2464 (6th Dist. June 19, 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-3210","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3210","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=3210"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3210\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3210"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3210"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3210"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}