{"id":7058,"date":"2012-05-01T10:30:33","date_gmt":"2012-05-01T07:32:40","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-05-01T07:32:40","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=7058","title":{"rendered":"N.D.Ga.: In shooting call, protective sweep can go into attic"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Officers responding to a shooting call were validly in the defendant\u2019s residence. They did a <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=14617911839617855186&amp;q=maryland+v.+buie&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,4\">protective sweep<\/a> that extended into the attic, and it was valid. Guns and drugs were in plain view in the attic and seized. United States v. Cruz, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59708 (N.D. Ga. March 19, 2012).<\/p>\n<p>The inventory of defendant\u2019s car was proper because it was being towed because it would have been left blocking traffic. Defendant\u2019s mother arrived after the inventory started, and the officer was not obliged to let her have it. [Although, I\u2019m sure he could have, but the inventory would still have been valid up until then, like the withdrawn consent after something found.] <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sconet.state.oh.us\/rod\/docs\/pdf\/2\/2012\/2012-ohio-1858.pdf\">State v. Pullen<\/a>, 2012 Ohio 1858, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 1631 (2d Dist. April 27, 2012).*<\/p>\n<p>In a search warrant for child sexual exploitation with photographs on a camera, cell phone, or computer, the fact that the victim was referred to as a \u201cjuvenile\u201d was enough for probable cause. It would have been better to have listed the DOB of the juvenile, but close enough for government work. The court also chides defense counsel for the lateness of the motion to suppress, but doesn\u2019t rely on that because it invites an IAC claim. [Not to mention the government may not have quickly provided the search warrant materials; try getting them around here sometimes, especially if a state court issued the warrant and the feds are using it.] United States v. Gleaves, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59508 (N.D. Iowa April 27, 2012).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=7058\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/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-7058","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7058","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=7058"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7058\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=7058"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=7058"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=7058"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}