{"id":4476,"date":"2012-04-05T10:21:16","date_gmt":"2010-07-26T08:28:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-07-25T08:30:19","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4476","title":{"rendered":"TN: Consenter had apparent authority over two buildings, not just one"},"content":{"rendered":"

Officers looking for a fugitive were on the \u201cJohnson properties.\u201d It was common knowledge in the community that two houses nearby were the \u201cJohnson property,\u201d and one person\u2019s consent to search the \u201cJohnson properties\u201d reasonably was believed to include both buildings. The officers were lawfully there in the first place. State v. Johnson<\/a>, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 614 (July 22, 2010).*<\/p>\n

In a DUI case, where the officer testified that he wasn\u2019t sure who took the blood sample, and under statute only a physician, qualified technician, chemist, registered professional nurse, or licensed vocational nurse may take a blood specimen at the request or a LEO, it was a credibility determination against the state, and suppression was affirmed. State v. Robinson<\/a>, 325 S.W.3d 212 (Tex. App. \u2013 Waco 2010), Petition for discretionary review granted by State v. Robinson, 2010 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS
\n1353 (Tex. Crim. App., Oct. 20, 2010).*<\/p>\n

The officer spoke to defendant in English, getting no response. So he spoke Spanish and defendant spoke to him. He asked if he could \u201ctake a look\u201d and defendant agreed and was found to have consented. State v. Medina<\/a>, 205 N.C. App. 683, 697 S.E.2d 401 (2010).*<\/p>\n

Defendant\u2019s claim that defense counsel was ineffective for not arguing that the search warrant specify the crime under investigation fails. Rule 41(e) does not require that, and it was amended out in 1972. His claim that the warrant have \u201cscrupulous exactitude\u201d comes from First Amendment implicating search warrants, Stanford v. Texas<\/a>. Hale v. United States, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73604 (N.D. Ill. July 22, 2010).*<\/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-4476","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4476","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=4476"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4476\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4476"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4476"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4476"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}