\u201cEven when Sgt. Sublette’s initial deception is considered, the totality of the circumstances amount to voluntary consent by Carron. At the time of the encounter, Carron was a 44-year-old man who appeared to be reasonably intelligent with prior experience in the criminal justice system. He met the two officers on the driveway of his home as he returned home from work in the afternoon. The officers identified themselves as law enforcement but were dressed in plain clothes and did not display badges, have weapons drawn, or otherwise make a show of authority.\u201d United States v. Carron, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61937 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 7, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff\u2019s arrest for even a minor offense that happens in the officer\u2019s presence is reasonable. Alburg v. Jones, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 8299 (3d Cir. Apr. 7, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s arrest for a felony was with probable cause. State v. McCurty, 2023-Ohio-1158, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 1116 (2d Dist. Apr. 7, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The legality of a protective sweep of defendant\u2019s car for a weapon was a moot point. The vehicle was subject to impoundment and it was lawfully inventoried. Everything found was subject to inevitable discovery. State v. Nixon, 2023-Ohio-1160, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 1121 (2d Dist. Apr. 7, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cEven when Sgt. Sublette’s initial deception is considered, the totality of the circumstances amount to voluntary consent by Carron. At the time of the encounter, Carron was a 44-year-old man who appeared to be reasonably intelligent with prior experience in … Continue reading