Defendant was in his mother’s home when he was arrested and the place was searched. He failed to show a reasonable expectation of privacy in her place because he disavowed that he was an overnight guest and he was there to smoke crack all night and not sleep there. United States v. Hunt, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111768 (M.D. Ala. July 31, 2008)*:<\/p>\n
Hunt expressly disavowed any ownership interests in the dwelling and acknowledged he neither lived nor resided at his mother’s residence. He repeatedly stated he did not stay there. He testified he was not there to sleep over at the house, but rather, up all night smoking crack and marijuana and watching television, and had just fallen asleep before the officers arrived. When asked who uses the bedroom at the dwelling, Hunt stated it was a family house with many people coming and going and there was no telling who had been in the house.<\/p>\n
“The fact that [Hunt] had temporary access to the premises along with several other members of [his] family and had some personal effects there does not establish the requisite subjective expectation of privacy to assert standing when coupled with [his] explicit disclaimer of ownership or interest.” Sweeting, 933 F.2d at 964. Thus, Hunt is unable to establish standing to challenge the search of his mother’s house.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
So, does this mean that one has to intend to sleep to have standing, even in his mother’s home, where he has a standing invitation to stay for any reason or any purpose? That can’t be the law.<\/p>\n
Crossing the fog line twice, driving 40 in a 60, discrepancies in the account of the trip, and a furtive movement justified a request for consent. People v Blanco<\/a>, 67 A.D.3d 923, 889 N.Y.S.2d 93 (2d Dept. 2009).*<\/p>\n
Apparent hand to hand transaction from a car in an area known as a high crime area was reasonable suspicion. State v. Brewer<\/a>, 2009 Ohio 6129, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 5146 (2d Dist. November 20, 2009).*<\/p>\n
Officers had reasonable suspicion on approaching a parked car with people standing around it in an area known for gang activity and saw two people throw handguns under the car. State v. Johnson<\/a>, 2009 Ohio 6136, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 5152 (2d Dist. November 20, 2009)* (well, Duh!).<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s stumbling when he got out of his car was reasonable suspicion of driving while impaired. It was visible on the video of the stop. The officer had asked for consent, too, because of a tip that defendant was involved in drug activity. The consent was valid. State v. Coniglio<\/a>, 2009 Ohio 6087, 185 Ohio App. 3d 157, 923 N.E.2d 646 (5th Dist. 2009).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading