“[U]tterly defective” search warrant for a pool hall that described neither the place to be searched nor the things to be seized that led to 50 people being searched led to suppression. United States v. Glenn, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71959 (S.D. Ga. July 29, 2009). The introduction:<\/p>\n
Alphonzo Glenn, along with some forty to fifty other people, was a patron of the What Game Room in Reidsville, Georgia when police officers arrived to execute a search warrant that they believed authorized them to search the premises for distilled spirits being sold by the proprietor without a license. The search warrant was utterly defective, however, for it described neither the place to be searched nor the items to be seized. On the strength of this facially invalid warrant, a squad of officers and SWAT team members burst into the crowded and dimly lit premises, ordered everyone to the floor, and proceeded to patdown each of the patrons for weapons and contraband, a procedure that took over an hour to complete. Glenn now moves to suppress the small caliber pistol that was removed from his waistband, as well as the statements that he made to the officers following the discovery of that weapon. (Doc. 19.) His motion should be GRANTED.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Defendant did not have a right to be informed of his right to refuse a consent search or even be Mirandized before the search occurred. United States v. Nandi-Cipriano, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72292 (D. Neb. July 21, 2009).*<\/p>\n
“The law and circumstances permitted officers to impound Dorsett’s van to place it in protective custody and for investigation based on probable cause. After the officers arrested Dorsett, he could no longer drive the van. Absent impoundment, the van would have remained, not at Dorsett’s residence, but at a residence known for narcotics. Therefore the officers were justified in taking the van into protective custody. [\u00b6] The officers also had probable cause to impound the van.” United States v. Dorsett, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72010 (D.Neb. June 15, 2009)* [Extremely poor choice of words. The court should have just left this at PC and not “protective custody,” which I thought was a phrase reserved for people.]<\/p>\n
Owner of a van had apparent authority to consent to its search in a National Park. United States v. Stephens<\/a>, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 18505 (4th Cir. August 17, 2009) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading