Limited entry into a motel room on smelling a meth cook for safety reasons was reasonable. A search warrant was then obtained. United States v. Reeves, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58662 (E.D. Ark. May 31, 2011):<\/p>\n
\u201cA warrantless search is reasonable when justified by both probable cause and exigent circumstances.\u201d United States v. Walsh, 299 F.3d 729, 733 (8th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Parris, 17 F.3d 227, 229 (8th Cir. 1994). The Eighth Circuit \u201chas consistently considered safety factors in determining whether exigent circumstances existed.\u201d Id. at 734 (quoting United States v. Boettger, 71 3d. 1410, 1415 (8th Cir. 1995)). The \u201cpotential hazards of methamphetamine manufacture are well documented, and numerous cases have upheld limited warrantless searches by police officers who had probable cause to believe they had uncovered an on-going methamphetamine manufacturing operation.\u201d Id. [\u00b6] The Court finds Johnson had probable cause to believe that methamphetamine was being illegally processed in the motel room. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The search warrant was for defendant in jail and sought \u201cD.N.A. in any or all forms that can be collected.\u201d This was not limited to his cell, but it included his person in jail. In any event, the good faith exception makes it valid. Magee v. State<\/a>, 73 So. 3d 1183 (Miss. App. 2011).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s stop was based on a traffic offense, but the continuation was based on a CI\u2019s statement that defendant was involved in making meth at a particular address, where the officer had heard of prior drug activity. During the stop, the defendant became nervous, and the court finds reasonable suspicion for continuing the detention for the drug dog. Mitchell v. State<\/a>, 342 S.W.3d 818 (Tex. App.\u2014Amarillo 2011).*<\/p>\n
Defendants\u2019 stop was legal, and the only question was whether it was extended. The detention was extended after consent was refused, but the court finds reasonable suspicion on the totality for extending the stop. United States v. Alvarez-Mora, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57685 (D. Kan. May 26, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading