{"id":4735,"date":"2011-01-08T14:43:29","date_gmt":"2010-10-05T05:06:50","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-10-05T05:06:50","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4735","title":{"rendered":"TN: Failure to immediately serve DNA search warrant on prison inmate not fatal to search"},"content":{"rendered":"

In this capital case, Pennsylvania police received word in 1994 that defendant in Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary was a suspect in a 1988 Tennessee murder. Tennessee officers went there with a Kansas search warrant for defendant\u2019s DNA, which they did not serve on him at the time as required by state rule 41, but they mailed him a copy. After getting his DNA, defendant confessed to the muder. In 1989, the state court of appeals held in an unpublished opinion (not in S.W.2d, that is) that failure to immediately serve a search warrant on an incarcerated suspect was not fatal to the search, and that case is followed. State v. Henretta<\/a>, 325 S.W.3d 112 (Tenn. 2010)* (since the search warrant was issued and served in Kansas, why was not Kansas law applied?).<\/p>\n

An officer received word from fireman that a particular vehicle was driving like the driver was drunk, and they gave the license number. The officer ran the license and it came back to defendant. The officer went to defendant\u2019s address and found defendant asleep at the wheel in the driveway. The arrest was valid and the \u201cstop\u201d with reasonable suspicion. State v. Patterson<\/a>, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 821 (September 30, 2010).*<\/p>\n

A stop for failing to move over for flashing lights of emergency vehicles on the shoulder supported defendant\u2019s stop. While waiting for the DL information to come back, defendant\u2019s story about his travel plans seemed suspicious. Then he started contradicting himself, raising more suspicion. The officer admitted that he was trained to converse with motorists while waiting for the DL check to come back to find criminal indicators. Defendant was asked about consenting to a search, which he did. There was a drug dog in the police car right behind him. The subsequent search was valid. State v. Cooper<\/a>, 2009 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1085 (September 29, 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-4735","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4735","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=4735"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4735\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4735"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4735"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4735"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}