Defendant was having a seizure in his underwear on the street, about two blocks from his home. Officers could tell the smell of PCP about him. Officers went to his house and the door was cracked. Looking through the door, it looked like defendant might have somewhat trashed the place, and no one answered the officers\u2019 calls. They went back to where he was. They decided to enter without a warrant, using the excuse of the emergency aid exception, but there was no objective evidence there was another person inside. They then got a search warrant that completely failed to mention the PCP seizure on the street. The body cam videos were helpful, and the court concludes that the only motive was investigation of a potential drug offense, not a bona fide emergency. Motion to suppress granted. The good faith exception doesn\u2019t even apply. United States v. Leonard, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185328 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 15, 2023), adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184437 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 13, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The motion to reconsider State v. Wood, 2023-Ohio-2788 (2d Dist. Aug. 11, 2023) is denied. Appellant\u2019s argument conflates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. State v. Wood, 2023-Ohio-3735 (2d Dist. Oct. 5, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
10 am knock-and-talk led to a consent entry. United States v. Estrella, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185020 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant was having a seizure in his underwear on the street, about two blocks from his home. Officers could tell the smell of PCP about him. Officers went to his house and the door was cracked. Looking through the door, … Continue reading