Officers entered defendant\u2019s house on exigency, and then reentered allegedly by consent. However, \u201c[t]he inconsistencies in the record and evidence presented support a finding, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the government has failed to meet its burden to show that it obtained valid consent to re-enter and search the house in which the firearm was seized, and the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress is granted with respect to the firearm.\u201d United States v. Drake, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103640 (D. S.C. September 13, 2011).*<\/p>\n
Whether the search warrant was valid in this case was moot because it was valid as a parole search in any event. United States v. Crutchfield<\/a>, 444 Fed. Appx. 526 (3d Cir. 2011).*<\/p>\n The officer here testified that defendant refused consent, but it was not found to be error. It was offered by the government to show why they got a search warrant and wasn\u2019t error [what BS], but it was harmless considering the overwhelming evidence in the case. United States v. Williams<\/a>, 444 Fed. Appx. 535 (3d Cir. 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading