{"id":5700,"date":"2012-05-01T09:22:40","date_gmt":"2011-06-27T06:51:30","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-06-27T06:51:30","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5700","title":{"rendered":"OR: Stop of a car leaving a drug house was unreasonable"},"content":{"rendered":"

The car defendant was in was stopped leaving an alleged drug house. She refused permission to search her purse. The stop of the car and the search of her purse were unlawful. \u201cThe things that [Officer] Norris mentioned do not meet the Ehly test. As a practical matter, defendant\u2019s refusal to permit Norris to search her purse may have raised his suspicions, but as a legal matter it can play no role. A person\u2019s assertion of a constitutional right cannot support a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.\u201d State v. Rutledge<\/a>, 243 Ore. App. 603, 260 P.3d 532 (2011).*<\/p>\n

\u201cProbable cause did not exist to arrest the defendant for allegedly violating the city ordinance against the solicitation of unlawful business based on nothing more than observing the defendant standing on the public way yelling \u2018dro, dro.\u2019 [allegedly soliciting heroin sales] Therefore, the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence.\u201d People v. Grant<\/a>, 951 N.E.2d 1153 (Ill. App. 2011), Appeal granted by People v. Grant, 955 N.E.2d 475, 2011 Ill. LEXIS 1599 (Ill., Sept. 28, 2011).*<\/p>\n

Officers were looking for Barnes driving a red Cadillac. A red Cadillac was seen and stopped. In plain view was a gun under the seat and a pill bottle, and the driver was removed and searched and drugs were found. The officer that knew Barnes arrived and said that the driver was not Barnes. Defendant\u2019s search was without legal basis and suppressed. Eaddy v. State<\/a>, 63 So. 3d 1209 (Miss. 2011).*<\/p>\n

State\u2019s certification of necessity for appeal was deficient and the state\u2019s appeal of a suppression order was dismissed. State v. Peterson<\/a>, 2011 ND 109, 799 N.W.2d 67 (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-5700","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5700","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=5700"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5700\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5700"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5700"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5700"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}