{"id":4520,"date":"2011-01-11T13:47:47","date_gmt":"2010-08-07T09:53:41","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-08-07T09:53:41","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4520","title":{"rendered":"CA8: Four Fourth Amendment cases in two days"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Officer safety justified a search incident of defendant\u2019s car even though he was not right near it because he spoke to others in a foreign language, and the others were not secured. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca8.uscourts.gov\/opndir\/10\/08\/092186P.pdf\">United States v. Salamasina<\/a>, 615 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 2010).<\/p>\n<p>Defendant\u2019s stop was not unconstitutionally extended, and defendant consented: \u201cIf you\u2019d like to. I mean, I\u2019m fine.\u201d United States v. $231,930.00 in United States Currency, 614 F.3d 837 (8th Cir. 2010) (not on court&#8217;s website):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Also, the presence of three officers, alone, does not make the encounter a seizure, and Sergeant Vance had no duty to tell Kupczyk that he could deny the request to search. &#8220;There is no per se requirement that an officer inform a citizen of his right to refuse consent, and there is no presumption that consent is invalid where given without an explicit notification of the right to refuse.&#8221; United States v. Vera, 457 F.3d 831, 835 (8th Cir. 2006).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Conflicting statements from the defendant and his wife justified prolonging the detention [which could have been argued was consensual by the government, but it didn\u2019t have to]. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca8.uscourts.gov\/opndir\/10\/08\/093897P.pdf\">United States v. Bracamontes<\/a>, 09-3897 (8th Cir. August 5, 2010).*<\/p>\n<p>In a conspiracy investigation also with some wiretaps, it was developed that a certain car likely was involved, and there was probable cause to believe that there was drug evidence in the car. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca8.uscourts.gov\/opndir\/10\/08\/093126P.pdf\">United States v. Williams<\/a>, 616 F.3d 760 (8th Cir. 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4520\">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-4520","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4520","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=4520"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4520\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4520"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4520"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4520"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}