Information from a law-abiding tipster, well known in the community, was inherently reliable. Once it was corroborated, PC existed. Fleming v. State, 281 Ga. App. 207, 635 S.E.2d 823 (August 18, 2006).<\/p>\n
Earlier in the evening, an officer observed a man fire a weapon. On further investigation, he found the defendant in the vicinity of the gunfire with open containers of beer, spent shell casings, and marijuana nearby. This supported a patdown for weapons. State v. Thompson, 2006 Ohio 4285, 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 4211 (1st Dist. August 18, 2006).<\/p>\n
Officer in hallway of apartment building saw an extension cord coming from under a door to an outlet in the common hallway. When he unplugged the cord, the occupant opened the door. The possibility the occupant was stealing electricity did not justify an entry. Grant of motion to suppress affirmed. State v. West, 2006 Ohio 4267, 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 4179 (8th Dist. August 17, 2006).<\/p>\n
Reasonable suspicion was apparent from air freshener, rubber bands, an empty money wrapper in the console for $1,000, the vehicle history was associated with drugs, and, while the driver was local, the vehicle was from Texas, a source state. This allowed the vehicle to be detained long enough for a dog to arrive. (The officer also told the occupants that they were free to leave, but the vehicle wasn’t moving until after the dog sniff.) State v. Bennett, 2006 Ohio 4274, 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 4182 (8th Dist. August 17, 2006).*<\/p>\n
PC still existed three weeks after defendant was alleged to have come into possession of expensive diamond rings. State v. Henderson, 341 Ore. 219, 142 P.3d 58 (August 17, 2006):<\/p>\n
Moreover, and even without [the officer’s] statements about his experience, we think that the magistrate could rely on his own common sense and draw reasonable inferences from [the officer’s] information about the rings and about defendant. The rings were nonperishable items of high value that would be easy to conceal, that retain their value, and that some people might find attractive to keep for personal use. On the basis of all the information discussed above, we conclude that the evidence before the magistrate supported the conclusion that there was probable cause to search defendant’s residence.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evGMco.b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading