{"id":3501,"date":"2011-07-03T13:13:06","date_gmt":"2009-11-02T08:24:58","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-11-02T08:24:58","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3501","title":{"rendered":"WA: SI of a car abandoned in flight from police was invalid"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant’s car was not subject to a search incident where he was being chased by the police and bailed from the car and ran across a drainage ditch before he was captured. The car was left in gear, and an officer put it in gear, turned it off, and removed the keys. State v. Grib<\/a>, 152 Wn. App. 885, 218 P.3d 644 (2009).* (Is this based on Washington law? Why no abandonment of the car? Virtually every other court would have held that.)<\/p>\n

The court “ha[s] significant doubt whether the affidavit here establishes the crucial link between the illegal activity and the victim’s home. However, we need not reach that issue directly because we conclude that the ‘good faith’ exception to the exclusionary rule is applicable in these circumstances.” Objectively, the police acted reasonably and in reasonable reliance on the search warrant. People v. Hagos<\/a>, 250 P.3d 596 (Colo. App. 2009), cert. denied 2011 U.S. LEXIS 2325 (U.S., Mar. 21, 2011).*<\/p>\n

Defendant’s premises were subjected to a probation search when he wasn’t there. The officer had been looking for him for lack of contact, and the officer was admitted by defendant’s girlfriend. In the kitchen, he found boxes of ammunition, and that justified a complete search of the premises, and a gun was found. State v. Marks<\/a>, 28 So. 3d 342 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2009).*<\/p>\n

Officers had RS for the investigative detention of the defendant from surveillance of a controlled buy they knew was going down. The frisk of defendant was justified by his past record. United States v. Rafus, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100902 (D. Nev. August 24, 2009).*<\/p>\n

Although not a “search case” for purposes of this website, of interest is United States v. Sanchez<\/a>, 586 F.3d 918 (11th Cir. 2009), where the defendants twice burglarized a hydroponic grow operation to steal the marijuana. The government got consent to search the premises from the grow operator. Unanswered is whether the grow operator was immunized or whether he even reported the burglary. Also an issue is cellphone records which were “frivolous[ly]” objected to on an alleged inadequate business record foundation. <\/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-3501","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3501","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=3501"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3501\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3501"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3501"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3501"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}