There was probable cause for the search of defendant\u2019s car. He also claimed that the car was searched before the warrant for it issued. Based on a drone video, defendant was Tasered, and an officer opened and closed the car door, making sure no one else was in it. The court credits that. [Besides, inevitable discovery.] State v. Scott, 2026 La. App. LEXIS 2081 (La. App. 5 Cir Oct. 7, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIn the present case, there was uncontroverted testimony that before entering the apartment, North Olmsted police heard an individual say he was \u2018tripping,\u2019 that the individual asked for help, and that he requested an ambulance. There also was uncontroverted testimony that unlike in Fisher \u2014 and even though subjective belief is irrelevant \u2014 North Olmsted police summoned medical aid before entering the dwelling. Indeed, the uncontroverted testimony was that even with medical personnel on the scene, the officers continued to knock and announce themselves. It was not until officers heard a thud or thump, followed by silence, that they decided \u2014 in conjunction with medical personnel, no less \u2014 to make a warrantless entry.\u201d Defense\u2019s effort to minimize the \u201cthud\u201d doesn\u2019t make the entry unreasonable. State v. Jordan, 2026-Ohio-3956 (8th Dist. Oct. 8, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
There was probable cause for the search of defendant\u2019s car. He also claimed that the car was searched before the warrant for it issued. Based on a drone video, defendant was Tasered, and an officer opened and closed the car … Continue reading