On summary judgment, entry into plaintiff\u2019s hotel room was without exigent circumstances or a warrant, and a jury might find the officers liable. On this claim, the law is well settled. \u201cMaking all inferences in plaintiffs’ favor, a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that a competent officer under the circumstances of this case would have understood both that exigent circumstances did not exist before the officers entered the room and that entering the room in the absence of such circumstances violated plaintiffs\u2019 [clearly established] constitutional rights.\u201d Inman v. Siciliano, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75285 (D. Mass. May 31, 2012).* <\/p>\n
DUI traffic stop led to plain view of a switchblade in passenger\u2019s lap which caused his arrest. Following that, a plain view of a gun led to a search for which he had no standing. United States v. Seigler<\/a>, 484 Fed. Appx. 650 (3d Cir. 2012).*<\/p>\n In this murder case the defendant did not specify what was to be suppressed, but \u201c[w]aiver notwithstanding, the only testimony is that the Defendant consented to the search of his vehicle.\u201d That\u2019s first a question of fact resolved against him. State v. Sexton<\/a>, 368 S.W.3d 371 (Tenn. 2012).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading