Consent after an illegal entry was a consequence of the entry and would be suppressed. One of the critical officers involved and the defendant didn\u2019t testify at the suppression hearing, and the court will give the parties an opportunity to say what else they would do and how it would change the outcome [\u201cGiven the serious consequences of the Court’s findings and analysis, the Court will provide the parties an opportunity to request a further hearing before this Order shall be deemed final.\u201d] United States v. Roberts, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115642 (N.D. Ga. August 15, 2012).*<\/p>\n
A protective sweep on serving an arrest warrant was justified by officers knowing that there was a car foreign to the premises there, someone other than defendant and his wife was getting mail there, and the defendant was known for violence because of his prior arrests. United States v. Crail, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115540 (S.D. Ohio August 16, 2012).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading