Officers standing at a convenience store heard loud party at a nearby mobile home, so they drove over there to “head off” a noise complaint. As they approached, everybody ran inside. Standing outside, they could smell alcohol and there were young people around. That did not create sufficient exigency to enter without a warrant. State v. Ealum, 283 Ga.
\nApp. 799, 643 S.E.2d 262 (2007).<\/p>\n
Police got a search warrant for premises, but the warrant did not permit searches of persons associated with the premises. When they arrived, they found people in the front yard talking. They were rounded up and searched, too, but this was outside the warrant. Norton v. State, 283 Ga. App. 790, 643 S.E.2d 278 (2007).<\/p>\n
Collateral estoppel barred retrying a suppression motion that was fully litigated in another county years earlier and was the same as the one defendant wanted to try here. People v. Vogel, 148 Cal. App. 4th 131, 55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 403 (3d Dist. 2007):<\/p>\n
The circumstances of this case, however, justify a different result. Defendant does not deny that the Siskiyou County case was a fair adversary proceeding in which he had the opportunity to fully present his case on the question of whether Sergeant Wiley had probable cause to arrest him for annoying or molesting a minor. Moreover, not only did defendant get a full and fair chance to litigate that issue before the superior court, he got a full and fair chance to litigate the issue before this court. Thus, there is no need to allow defendant to relitigate the issue in this case to vindicate his right to a fair adversary proceeding in which he can fully present his case on the probable cause issue. Defendant has had that opportunity already. Under these circumstances, the need to limit litigation must prevail. This result promotes judicial economy, prevents the possibility of an inconsistent determination that would undermine the integrity of the judicial system, and provides repose to the People.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Six days between a sale of heroin and a search warrant for defendant’s house was not stale. Prince v. State, 920 A.2d 400 (Del. 2007).*<\/p>\n
Defendant was free to walk away from an officer questioning him because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion. Greeno v. State, 861 N.E.2d 1232 (Ind. App. February 27, 2007):<\/p>\n
Bobby Greeno appeals the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence collected from his person. In this interlocutory appeal, he asserts the warrantless search to which he was subjected was unconstitutional. The Fourth Amendment permits a police officer, without any reasonable suspicion of any wrongdoing, to approach a citizen to ask questions; however, that citizen remains free to ignore the questions and walk away. Accordingly, when a citizen in such a circumstance walks away from the officer, the officer must have reasonable suspicion a crime is, was, or is about to occur prior to yelling “stop” and chasing the citizen. Because the officer had no reasonable suspicion when he yelled for Greeno to stop and then chased after Greeno, his warrantless search of Greeno was improper. We therefore reverse the denial of Greeno’s motion to suppress.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading