{"id":6059,"date":"2013-02-09T09:35:25","date_gmt":"2011-09-22T14:51:51","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-09-22T14:51:51","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6059","title":{"rendered":"TN: Police can’t order driver from car without RS after stop was over"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ordering the defendant out of the car after the stop was effectively completed was unreasonable. There is no carte blanche to order a driver out of the car at any time without reason. Here, the officer did not consider the driver a safety threat. State v. Donaldson<\/a>, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 717 (September 15, 2011).*<\/p>\n

The search warrant was for a tan building at 506 Christie Street. When the police arrived, they searched a blue building at that address. It turned out that the blue building was on the street and the tan building was behind it with the same address. The warrant failed the particularity requirement. State v. Spivey<\/a>, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 720 (September 19, 2011)*:<\/p>\n

Based on the above authority and analysis, we agree with the trial court, and conclude that the search warrant was unconstitutional because it failed to adequately specify the property to be searched. The search warrant described the residence as a single story, single family dwelling with tan siding located at 506 Christie Street on the northeast corner of Christie Street and Brigance Avenue. It failed, however, to distinguish the subject building from a second building on the property, the only one that was actually tan. This is fatal to the search warrant because it authorized law enforcement to search the tan building, which was occupied by a resident unrelated to the investigation. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The exclusionary rule does not apply to probation revocation searches unless they were conducted in bad faith. Jones v. State<\/a>, 2011 Ark. App. 543 (September 21, 2011).*<\/p>\n

The exclusionary rule does not apply to probation searches, and this one was valid. Miller v. State<\/a>, 2011 Ark. App. 554, 386 S.W.3d 65 (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-6059","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6059","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=6059"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6059\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6059"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6059"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6059"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}