After a protective sweep looking for a rifle came up empty, officers could not just go back into the house to search it for the gun. United States v. Laudermilt, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61661 (N.D. W.Va. June 10, 2011), adopting R&R, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61682 (N.D. W.Va. May 31, 2011):<\/p>\n
This Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s finding that the defendant’s recent possession of a rifle, his threatening demeanor, and the fact that his younger half-brother was still inside are circumstances that justified the initial entry into the home to locate any unaccounted for individuals and to ensure the safety of the officers. However, these circumstances did not permit the officers to seize the firearm after the residence had been secured and the protective sweep had ended. The key inquiry \u2014 the determination of when the protective sweep ended \u2014 requires a detailed review of the facts.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
DWI is not a minor offense, and a warrantless entry into the home may be justified by exigent circumstances of dissipation of alcohol. State v. Nance<\/a>, 2011 NMCA 48, 149 N.M. 644, 253 P.3d 934 (App. 2011), Writ of certiorari denied State v. Nance, 2011 N.M. LEXIS 176 (N.M., Apr. 14, 2011).<\/p>\n
The defendant\u2019s consent to search a gift bag that the officer had picked up and he believed by its weight held a gun was reasonable and valid. Brooks v. Commonwealth<\/a>, 2011 Va. LEXIS 132 (June 9, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading