{"id":4450,"date":"2010-12-29T08:47:45","date_gmt":"2010-07-19T06:24:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-07-19T06:24:00","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4450","title":{"rendered":"WI: Running noise inside showed exigency of destruction of evidence"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Officers went to defendant\u2019s place based on an informant\u2019s statement he was there dealing drugs and had an outstanding warrant. It was actually a commitment order for unpaid fines. When officers got there and knocked and announced, they heard running sounds inside. They could reasonably believe that the defendant was running to destroy evidence. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.wicourts.gov\/sc\/opinion\/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&amp;seqNo=52178\">State v. Robinson<\/a>, 2010 WI 80, 327 Wis. 2d 302, 768 N.W.2d 463 (July 15, 2010).<\/p>\n<p>Defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging that search on the ground the officers manufactured exigent circumstances where it was clear there were exigent circumstances. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.wicourts.gov\/sc\/opinion\/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&amp;seqNo=52199\">State v. Artic<\/a>, 2010 WI 83, 327 Wis. 2d 392, 768 N.W.2d 430 (2010), certiorari denied 2010 U.S. LEXIS 9126 (U.S., Nov. 29, 2010)*<\/p>\n<p>Officers had a search warrant for defendant\u2019s house, and found him 1\u00bd blocks away. His stop and search was justified by the automobile exception. When the officers approached the car, they could smell burning marijuana. <a href=\"http:\/\/weblinks.westlaw.com\/result\/default.aspx?action=Search&amp;cnt=DOC&amp;db=MA-ORSLIP&amp;eq=search&amp;fmqv=c&amp;fn=_top&amp;method=TNC&amp;n=1&amp;origin=Search&amp;query=TO%28ALLAPP+ALLAPPRS%29&amp;rlt=CLID_QRYRLT7732743195197&amp;rltdb=CLID_DB9982742195197&amp;rlti=1&amp;rp=%2Fsearch%2Fdefault.wl&amp;rs=MAOR1.0&amp;service=Search&amp;sp=MassOF-1001&amp;srch=TRUE&amp;ss=CNT&amp;sskey=CLID_SSSA4584342195197&amp;sv=Split&amp;vr=1.0\">Commonwealth v. Velez<\/a>, 77 Mass. App. Ct. 270, 929 N.E.2d 984 (2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4450\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/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-4450","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4450","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=4450"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4450\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4450"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4450"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4450"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}