Defendant\u2019s state court bail condition included that he submit to reasonable searches of his person and place at anytime. There\u2019s no showing that he didn\u2019t understand the condition. United States v. Kissh, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3767 (D. Me. Jan. 7, 2020). [This is just wrong and cannot be supported by implied or contractual consent. It’s coercion in the same order as a probation or parole search, which is permitted because probation and parole have the accused under supervision and they have been found guilty. Nothing in the Fourth Amendment justifies this, including forced implied consent. The court went with consent, not special needs.]<\/p>\n
Under Texas\u2019s jury exclusionary rule statute, Article 38.23(a), defense counsel didn\u2019t object to the instruction given which might have been erroneous. Under their standard of review, assuming it was error, the defense can\u2019t show \u201cegregious error.\u201d Hernandez v. State<\/a>, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 203 (Tex. App. \u2013 Eastland Jan. 9, 2020).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant\u2019s state court bail condition included that he submit to reasonable searches of his person and place at anytime. There\u2019s no showing that he didn\u2019t understand the condition. United States v. Kissh, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3767 (D. Me. Jan. … Continue reading