Pinging defendant\u2019s cell phone to try to find him after he had shot three people seven hours apart was with exigent circumstances. This is already settled in this state. State v. Smith, 2023-Ohio-4565, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 4389 (2d Dist. Dec. 15, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant was stopped for erratic driving. Once stopped, other indicia of being under the influence were apparent. The arrest for DUI was with probable cause. State v. Woolard, 2023 N.C. LEXIS 941 (Dec. 15, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When the search for drugs was four days after arrest: \u201cMerritt does not deny that it was her residence, her truck, her purse, or her makeup bag in which the methamphetamine was found. Her only argument appears to be that because the shed was possibly unlocked and the passenger door of her truck was possibly open for the four days between her arrest and the execution of the search warrant, the jury necessarily had to speculate to conclude that she possessed the methamphetamine.\u201d It\u2019s not speculation. Merritt v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 575, 2023 Ark. App. LEXIS 632 (Dec. 14, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Pinging defendant\u2019s cell phone to try to find him after he had shot three people seven hours apart was with exigent circumstances. This is already settled in this state. State v. Smith, 2023-Ohio-4565, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 4389 (2d Dist. … Continue reading