{"id":3760,"date":"2010-05-18T23:25:28","date_gmt":"2010-01-23T07:57:07","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-01-23T07:57:07","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3760","title":{"rendered":"MO: Entry into defendant’s backyard at night was unreasonable"},"content":{"rendered":"

Officers went into defendant\u2019s backyard about midnight and looked around. They saw \u201cno trespassing\u201d signs on the building, which the court believes meant the backyard and not just the building (the building was a given). Going into the backyard was unreasonable. State v. Kruse<\/a>, 306 S.W.3d 603 (W.D. Mo. 2010)*:<\/p>\n

This is not a case where the police officers merely knocked on the front door to ask whether Beel was present. The officers went into the back yard before trying the front door. The officers did not fear present danger or present destruction of evidence. When the officers arrived at Kruse’s residence, they called for and took the time to wait for additional officers to arrive. Beel’s van had a flat tire. Beel was presumably unaware of police presence, and his van was essentially immobile. Prior to the police entry into the back yard, Beel had no motive to flee or destroy evidence. The police acknowledged that the situation did not call for immediate action. The officers had time to seek a warrant to search for Beel. In the unlikely case the warrant were denied, the officers still could have come back and knocked on the front door to ask about Beel.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not moving to suppress a search of a meth lab entered on exigent circumstances. State v. Madden<\/a>, 2010 Ohio 176, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 145 (4th Dist. January 14, 2010).*<\/p>\n

In a child pornography case, the record supports the trial court\u2019s conclusion that defendant\u2019s wife consented to a seizure and search of their computer on which she admitted to seeing young girls in a state of undress. The issue of password protection of part of the computer as creating a privacy interest in it was not raised before the trial court and would not be considered on appeal. State v. Knisley<\/a>, 2010 Ohio 116, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 94 (2d Dist. January 15, 2010).*<\/p>\n

A controlled buy that was seen by the police to a CI was an adequate basis for defendant\u2019s stop. State v. Johnson<\/a>, 2010 Ohio 139, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 111 (5th Dist. January 19, 2010).*<\/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-3760","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3760","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=3760"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3760\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3760"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3760"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3760"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}