Defendant\u2019s occupying a condemned house owned by his father, that he refused to consent to a search of because it was his father\u2019s, lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the house. As a general matter, there is no expectation of privacy in a condemned building. (Moreover, at trial, it came out he lived elsewhere.) State v. Snow, 299 S.W.3d 710 (Mo. App. 2009):<\/p>\n
There was also substantial evidence at the hearing to establish that, while Snow had previously rented the house, he was no longer doing so because the City had condemned it. At the hearing, the State’s evidence showed that, after Ronnie had consented to have the house condemned, the City sent Snow an order to vacate the premises, which informed him that the house was unfit to live in and that he was no longer legally allowed to live there. The City’s posted notice at the house stated that it was unlawful for anyone to occupy the house. From this evidence, the trial court had a reasonable basis for concluding that Ronnie was not allowed to rent the house to anybody, including Snow. This evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that Snow had no objective expectation of privacy in the house. United States v. Washington, 573 F.3d 279, 283 (6th Cir. 2009) (stating that it is “certainly true a person cannot acquire an expectation of privacy in a structure that has been legally condemned [because] any presence is forbidden”); United States v. Jones, 556 F.Supp.2d 985, 990 (E.D. Mo. 2008) (stating that “[t]he lack of an expectation of privacy is even more conclusive if one accepts Defendant’s suggestion that the Residence had been condemned and no one was living there”).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Defendant\u2019s car was stopped for driving the wrong way on a one-way street, and the windows were overtinted. When asked about contraband, the defendant became nervous. The officer had reasonable suspicion for a patdown at that point. The drugs on defendant was then abandoned by dropping them. State v. Vasquez-Arenivar<\/a>, 18 Neb. App. 265, 779 N.W.2d 117 (2010).*<\/p>\n
IRS summons was proper: \u201cthe IRS has met its burden by presenting evidence through its Verified Petition that the Summons was issued for a legitimate purpose; that the information sought may be relevant to that purpose; that the summoned information is not already in possession of the IRS; and that the proper administrative steps have been followed.\u201d United States v. Bishop, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125018 (N.D. Cal. December 10, 2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading