Defendant had standing in the residence of his girlfriend even though he was married to somebody else and he was not an overnight guest; he had a key and he paid her bills. At the suppression hearing, she \u201ctestified to the intimate nature of her relationship with Defendant Watson, including the frequency of his visits and the typical duration of his stay with her.\u201d United States v. Watson, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44777 (E.D. Pa. May 6, 2010).<\/p>\n
The Court of Appeals held that the complete search of defendant\u2019s car\u2019s passenger compartment was valid under the search incident doctrine. After that, Gant<\/a> was decided, and the search incident rationale for a complete passenger compartment search as a matter of course was invalid. Because there was probable cause, however, the court finds that the inventory exception likely applies, so the case is remanded to the trial court for a new suppression hearing. Pineda v. People<\/a>, 230 P.3d 1181 (Colo. 2010):<\/p>\n The inventory-search exception allows officers to conduct an administrative inventory search of a vehicle after it has lawfully been taken into custody, provided the search is conducted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the police department and is not merely a pretext for an investigatory search. See Colorado v. Bertine<\/a>, 479 U.S. 367, 372 (1987); People v. Hauseman<\/a>, 900 P.2d 74, 79-80 (Colo. 1995). The undisputed evidence in this case demonstrates that the officers had ample probable cause to stop and arrest Pineda and that they followed departmental policies and procedures in taking the vehicle into custody and inventorying its contents. Therefore, we hold that the officers conducted a valid inventory search of Pineda’s vehicle. Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals on different grounds. We remand this case to that court so that it may be returned to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Defendant did not file a motion to suppress before trial, and he objected when the state offered it into evidence. He waived the motion to suppress by not pursuing it before trial. Helms v. State<\/a>, 926 N.E.2d 511 (Ind. App. 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading