Defendant\u2019s request for shoes after he was arrested and removed from his hotel room was implied consent for the officer to return to the room to get them. Plain view on that entry sustained. United States v. Chapman, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116074 (D. Utah August 16, 2012).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s motion to suppress is granted. His consent was shortly after, and came as result of, a prior illegal entry by the police and cannot be distinguished from it in time or context. Indeed, the officers involved in the consent thought they were part of the same operation. United States v. Roberts, 888 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (N.D. Ga. 2012),* rejecting R&R 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115638 (N.D. Ga. June 28, 2012).*<\/p>\n
Defendant hiding behind a pillar and his hands to avoid the police in a high crime area was reasonable suspicion. State v. Allen<\/a>, 2012 Ohio 3709, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 3282 (2d Dist. August 17, 2012).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading