{"id":3553,"date":"2010-03-23T10:45:53","date_gmt":"2009-11-21T23:08:36","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-11-22T08:10:50","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3553","title":{"rendered":"NH: Defendant abandoned stuff in apartment after he moved out"},"content":{"rendered":"

The record supported the conclusion that the defendant abandoned his property in an apartment he was evicted from. He had a week to get out, and he came back twice during the week to get things, but he didn\u2019t come back after that. The police search two weeks after his last visit did not violate his rights. State v. Howe<\/a>, 159 N.H. 366, 986 A.2d 631 (2009).<\/p>\n

IAC claim remanded to the Superior Court for findings. If the search was a warrantless home search, it likely was unreasonable. If it was a probation search, it likely was reasonable. Sullins v. State, 2009 Del. LEXIS 591 (July 23, 2009), on ramand, State v. Sullins, 2009 Del. Super. LEXIS 351 (Del. Super. Ct., Sept. 22, 2009) (search was clearly a probation search, so there).<\/p>\n

Under the Washington Constitution, a dog sniff has its limits as to place and duration. This one was from a place where defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy, next to a car, and defendant\u2019s rights were not violated. State v. Hartzell<\/a>, 153 Wn. App. 137, 221 P.3d 928 (2009):<\/p>\n

\u00b612 Whether or not a canine sniff is a search depends on the circumstances of the sniff itself. State v. Boyce, 44 Wn. App. 724, 729, 723 P.2d 28 (1986). In Boyce, this court held that as long as the canine \u201csniffs the object from an area where the defendant does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the canine sniff itself is minimally intrusive, then no search has occurred.\u201d Boyce, 44 Wn. App. at 730.<\/p>\n

\u00b613 The trial court correctly concluded that Hartzell did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the air coming from the open window of the vehicle. Hartzell was not in the SUV when the dog sniffed from a lawful vantage point outside the vehicle. The sniff was only minimally intrusive. The trial court did not err when it denied Hartzell’s motion to suppress the evidence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

[posted 11\/22]<\/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-3553","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3553","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=3553"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3553\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3553"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3553"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3553"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}