{"id":5973,"date":"2012-02-26T11:31:23","date_gmt":"2011-09-02T06:45:16","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-09-02T06:45:16","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5973","title":{"rendered":"IN follows Davis<\/em> because IN S.Ct. has previously similarly applied the exclusionary rule before Davis<\/em> to good faith searches where the law changed"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant\u2019s post-conviction claim that defense counsel essentially should have predicted Gant and argued that was unavailing. The court follows Davis v. United States<\/a> where SCOTUS held there was a good faith exception for pre-Gant searches relying on Belton because the Indiana Supreme Court similarly applied the exclusionary rule to a change in search and seizure law well before Davis<\/a>. Henderson v. State<\/a>, 953 N.E.2d 639 (Ind. App. 2011).<\/p>\n

The CI here was believable and entitled to credit where he told the police that he and the defendant had stolen an anhydrous ammonia tank and told them where they secreted it. It was an admission against penal interest. Smith v. State<\/a>, 953 N.E.2d 651 (Ind. App. 2011).*<\/p>\n

The suppression hearing testimony about the reason for defendant\u2019s stop was much more complete than the evidence at trial, and it showed reasonable suspicion. State v. Ostdiek<\/a>, 351 S.W.3d 758 n. 10 (Mo. App. 2011)* [That is not abnormal; once the stop is determined valid, the complete story usually doesn\u2019t matter to the trial. Here it did, but the trial court remembered the suppression hearing and held it all sufficient.]<\/p>\n

Defendant was stopped for not having a seat belt, and the officer saw in plain view pill bottles with oxycodone and Percocet. He got defendant out and searched his person and found cocaine. Then he searched the car finding oxycodone and methadone. Defendant was hooked up and locked in a car when the search of his car occurred, and that search is suppressed for lack of exigency (\u00b620). State v. Jones<\/a>, 163 Wn. App. 354, 266 P.3d 886 (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-5973","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5973","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=5973"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5973\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5973"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5973"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5973"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}