{"id":6213,"date":"2012-01-19T18:27:25","date_gmt":"2011-11-01T05:53:15","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-11-01T05:53:15","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6213","title":{"rendered":"MD: No REP in the laundry unit of a multi-unit apartment building"},"content":{"rendered":"

There was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the laundry room of a multi-unit apartment building. While a CI was in the apartment, the defendant came down to the laundry area and entered a padlocked room to get what apparently was heroin he gave to the CI back in the room. The police were hiding in the laundry room and watched him enter the room. They got a search warrant for the locked room. Grymes v. State<\/a>, 202 Md. App. 70, 30 A.3d 1032 (2011).<\/p>\n

Based on information developed, the defendant\u2019s PO had reasonable suspicion to believe that defendant was living where he wasn\u2019t supposed to be: his car was outside and he was seen coming and going. The PO went to the home and found him inside. He also had reasonable suspicion to believe defendant\u2019s car had drugs inside, and that justified its search. Commonwealth v. Colon<\/a>, 2011 PA Super 228, 2011 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3248 (October 28, 2011).*<\/p>\n

Defendant\u2019s detention was not so long that it became unreasonable. After the officer found out that defendant was a \u201cknown drug violator,\u201d he just asked for consent and got it. State v. McLean<\/a>, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 802 (October 28, 2011)*:<\/p>\n

In this case, Agent Bales testified that based upon the defendant\u2019s demeanor and after running the records checks, he \u201cjust asked\u201d for consent to search. The defendant told Agent Bales to \u201c[g]o ahead.\u201d The video recording reveals no duress or coercion. The video recording, in fact, reflects the defendant\u2019s voluntary cooperation. See Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 243. Having already deemed the initial stop legal and the subsequent detention reasonable in duration and scope, we further conclude that the defendant consented freely and voluntarily to the search. The trial court correctly denied the motion to suppress.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\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-6213","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6213","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=6213"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6213\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6213"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6213"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6213"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}