{"id":55879,"date":"2023-09-21T06:51:25","date_gmt":"2023-09-21T11:51:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=55879"},"modified":"2023-09-21T06:51:25","modified_gmt":"2023-09-21T11:51:25","slug":"ga-unjustified-protective-sweep-suppressed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=55879","title":{"rendered":"GA: Unjustified protective sweep suppressed"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The \u201csecurity sweep\u201d of defendant\u2019s dwelling violated the Fourth Amendment. No justification for the entry and no exigent circumstances were shown. Defendant\u2019s alleged consent came after the unlawful entry. Denial of suppression reversed. Thompson v. State<\/a>, 2023 Ga. App. LEXIS 434 (Sep. 19, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The officer\u2019s entering a dwelling and saying \u201ccome over here\u201d was not consent. Motion to suppress granted. United States v. Roubideaux, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164805 (D.S.D. Aug. 29, 2023), adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164255 (D.S.D. Sep. 13, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIn Defendant’s motion to suppress and requesting a Franks hearing, Defendant argues extensively that Officer R\u00edos Camacho’s version of events found in the sworn statements of the warrant applications cannot be entirely true because some of the events described by Officer Camacho \u2014 such as the presence of a firearm \u2014 were not captured by a security camera at the residence during the dates of the surveillance. \u2026 However, the evidence regarding the security camera introduced at the Franks hearing did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Officer R\u00edos Camacho made intentional false statements or omissions or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.\u201d Even removing all that from the affidavit, there still was probable cause. United States v. Rom\u00e1n, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165947 (D.P.R. Sep. 18, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The \u201csecurity sweep\u201d of defendant\u2019s dwelling violated the Fourth Amendment. No justification for the entry and no exigent circumstances were shown. Defendant\u2019s alleged consent came after the unlawful entry. Denial of suppression reversed. Thompson v. State, 2023 Ga. App. LEXIS … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[24,21,22],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-55879","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-consent","category-franks-doctrine","category-protective-sweep"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55879","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\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=55879"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55879\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":55880,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55879\/revisions\/55880"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=55879"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=55879"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=55879"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}