{"id":4174,"date":"2011-05-01T18:24:18","date_gmt":"2010-05-15T09:56:49","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-05-15T09:56:49","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4174","title":{"rendered":"MO: Hudson<\/em> applied to illegal stop [!]"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant was illegally stopped, but an outstanding warrant was found and he was arrested on that, and that supported the search of the car and attenuated the illegal stop. Hudson v. Michigan<\/a> on applicability of the exclusionary rule supports this conclusion. State v. Grayson<\/a>, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 586 (May 11, 2010)<\/p>\n

We believe the principle set forth in Hudson has application here. Defendant’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure was violated when he was stopped and detained without a reasonable, articulable suspicion that he was engaged in criminal activity. However, the methamphetamine evidence found on Defendant’s person and in Officer Lambert’s police cruiser was not found because of the invalid stop. Instead, this evidence was found after a search incident to Defendant’s arrest on a valid warrant. The existence of that outstanding arrest warrant meant that Defendant could be seized and arrested at any time by any law enforcement officer. To our knowledge, an absence of reasonable, articulable suspicion necessary to support a Terry stop has never protected a person from being seized based on a valid arrest warrant.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

[I don\u2019t think so. Saying it doesn’t make it so, Missouri. This case ignores the “but for” standard, and essentially likens it (without saying so, because that would be even more intellectually dishonest) to abandonment in flight from an illegal stop. So, an illegal stop is cured by finding evidence of crime, whether the defendant discards the drugs before arrest or after? I’m stunned.]<\/p>\n

Defendant\u2019s parole search was based on reasonable suspicion that defendant had missed parole meetings. The PO saw defendant driving his car, so he went to the house, and saw the car. Defendant would not answer the door, so the PO called for police backup. State v. Benavidez<\/a>, 2010 NMCA 35, 148 N.M. 190, 231 P.3d 1132 (2010), Certiorari Denied, March 24, 2010, No. 32,254.*<\/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-4174","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4174","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=4174"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4174\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4174"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4174"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4174"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}