It was permissible for officers to seize firearms seen in plain view during this protective sweep. United States v. Riley, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198798 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 6, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cGiven the totality of the circumstances and the numerous distinctions between this case and McNeely and Oaks, we conclude that the blood draw was justified by exigent circumstances. Unlike McNeely, once Defendant refused consent to a blood draw, Officer Millsaps began the process to obtain a warrant and did so as efficiently as possible. Officer Millsaps prepared the application and called the general sessions judge \u2018at least five times,\u2019 but the judge did not answer any of the calls. He then reached out to the on-call district attorney who advised him to proceed with the blood draw without a warrant under the circumstances.\u201d State v. Davis, 2023 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 451 (Nov. 6, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cHere, as the People correctly concede, the detective’s on-the-scene observations during the two controlled drug buys fell short of probable cause without the information provided to him by the CI. Although the detective saw the CI walk toward the subject building and later return to the predesignated meeting location, he was unable to confirm that the CI had actually purchased the narcotics from the subject apartment (see People v Nettles, 172 AD3d at 1103-1104).\u201d People v. Huginnie, 2023 NY Slip Op 05516 (2d Dept. Nov. 1, 2023).* (This is a NY only issue.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
It was permissible for officers to seize firearms seen in plain view during this protective sweep. United States v. Riley, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198798 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 6, 2023). \u201cGiven the totality of the circumstances and the numerous distinctions … Continue reading