The citizen informant\u2019s defendant was too drunk to drive because he stumbled and crawled to his car was corroborated by observations and smelling him, so there was at least reasonable suspicion. Defendant\u2019s claim that his bar receipt from inside the bar was illegally seized is rejected for lack of development [aside from the third-party doctrine showing it was not unreasonable]. State v. Wojtowicz, 2024 MT 146 (July 16, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe Eighth Circuit has rejected Winters’s precise argument in an unpublished opinion. In any event, here, when Officer Scott confronted Winters about the smell of marijuana, Winters did not say that Officer Scott smelled legal hemp. Instead, Winters denied any knowledge of the smell and suggested he possessed no cannabis products, legal or illegal. The smell of marijuana, combined with Winters’s denial of any knowledge of the smell, provided Officer Scott with probable cause that the source of the smell was of the illegal variety.\u201d United States v. Winters, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124910 (N.D. Iowa July 16, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Because others can access the shoreline at plaintiff\u2019s property by law, that does not make them government actors under the Fourth Amendment. State Stilts, LLC v. State, 2024 R.I. Super. LEXIS 51 (July 12, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The citizen informant\u2019s defendant was too drunk to drive because he stumbled and crawled to his car was corroborated by observations and smelling him, so there was at least reasonable suspicion. Defendant\u2019s claim that his bar receipt from inside the … Continue reading