{"id":5610,"date":"2011-10-07T17:01:06","date_gmt":"2011-05-29T08:39:42","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-05-29T08:39:42","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5610","title":{"rendered":"MD: Public quasi-strip search of arrestee was reasonable because of exigency"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant\u2019s quasi-public strip search in broad daylight in public was not unreasonable because it was supported by exigent circumstances. While other cases did find such a search unreasonable, this one wasn\u2019t. \u201cWe must now weigh the scope, manner, and location of the search against the last Bell [v. Wolfish<\/a>] factor\u2014justification for the search. We hold that, in this case, the exigency of the search outweighed any intrusion on appellant\u2019s privacy. In fact, the urgency of the search in this case was much greater than that in Paulino and Allen.\u201d Turkes v. State<\/a>, 199 Md. App. 96, 20 A.3d 173 (2011).<\/p>\n

Motion to reconsider affirmance of denial of motion to suppress was denied because nothing was offered to show that the prior opinion was in error, so it was law of the case. State v. Caulfield<\/a>, 2011 La. App. LEXIS 652 (La. App. 5th Cir. May 24, 2011).*<\/p>\n

The search warrant\u2019s identification of records of two persons \u201cor others\u201d did not make the warrant overbroad because \u201cor others\u201d could be severed from the warrant if necessary. United States v. Rios<\/a>, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10659 (9th Cir. May 24, 2011) (unpublished)* (Since this is a memorandum opinion, we can\u2019t tell if this phrase is essentially irrelevant to the search anyway; if nothing outside the scope of the warrant was seized, where’s the beef?)<\/p>\n

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not using the DVD of the traffic stop to show the length of the stop was unreasonable. Going to the merits of the issue, it wasn\u2019t unreasonable, so defense counsel couldn\u2019t be ineffective. State v. Bush<\/a>, 2011 Iowa App. LEXIS 334 (May 25, 2011).*<\/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-5610","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5610","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=5610"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5610\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5610"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5610"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5610"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}