{"id":3747,"date":"2010-03-24T07:16:25","date_gmt":"2010-01-19T06:05:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-01-19T06:05:00","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3747","title":{"rendered":"CA7: Citizen informant info justified stop; search permitted by auto exception, consent, or inventory [take your pick]"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Defendant\u2019s vehicle stop was with probable cause from a citizen informant saying he was carrying a stolen gun.  The search of the trunk where the police were told by the citizen informant to look was justified by the automobile exception, consent, or the inventory exception. As to inventory, the police had no duty to locate the owner to come and get it rather than tow it. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca7.uscourts.gov\/tmp\/UH1FFSJ2.pdf\">United States v. Clinton<\/a>, 591 F.3d 968 (7th Cir. 2010).* (Note: This case is an example of how <a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourtus.gov\/opinions\/08pdf\/07-542.pdf\">Gant<\/a> is requiring the courts to go back to any valid alternative ground to sustain a vehicle search. Pre-<a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourtus.gov\/opinions\/08pdf\/07-542.pdf\">Gant<\/a> case law was virtually open season on cars, and that case forces courts to analyze all grounds for a vehicle search instead. And, at least half the time, an alternative works.)<\/p>\n<p>During a knock-and-talk, the police asked the occupants to come outside to talk and they did. One asked if he could go back to get a shirt, and an officer said that he could but the officer had to follow for safety reasons.  He assented. Inside, the officer saw crack in plain view, and that formed the basis of a search warrant request, which was valid. The entry was shown to be by consent. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.4dca.org\/opinions\/Jan%202010\/01-13-10\/4D08-4556.op.pdf\">Woods v. State<\/a>, 25 So. 3d 669 (Fla. App. 4th DCA 2010)* (Like <a href=\"http:\/\/caselaw.lp.findlaw.com\/scripts\/getcase.pl?court=us&amp;vol=455&amp;invol=1\">Washington v. Chrisman<\/a>).<\/p>\n<p>CI\u2019s information was not merely \u201cneutral details\u201d; it was specific as to times and dates and it justified defendant\u2019s stop. After the stop, defendant\u2019s actions were such that PC developed. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sconet.state.oh.us\/rod\/docs\/pdf\/8\/2010\/2010-ohio-73.pdf\">State v. Roubideaux<\/a>, 2010 Ohio 73, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 56 (8th Dist. January 14, 2010)*:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p> [*P38]  By that point, based upon his own firsthand observations in conjunction with the information provided by the CS who saw Roubideaux&#8217;s actions, Monnolly had probable cause to believe Roubideaux&#8217;s car contained contraband. State v. Underwood, Butler App. No. CA2003-03-057, 2004 Ohio 504; State v. Branch, Licking App. No. 08-CA-153, 2009 Ohio 4152, P34 (distinguishing Florida v. J.L. (2000), 529 U.S. 266, 120 S. Ct. 1375, 146 L. Ed. 2d 254). Indeed, if Monnolly did not act, any evidence of criminal activity would be lost because Roubideaux could no longer be detained for the traffic accident.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3747\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/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-3747","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3747","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=3747"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3747\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3747"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3747"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3747"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}