Entry to allow the defendant to get dressed to go to the stationhouse is valid. Plain view sustained. United States v. Avalos, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107467 (D. Neb. July 31, 2013), R&R 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107462 (D. Neb. June 26, 2013).<\/p>\n
\u201cMcCune knocked on the trailer door and said, \u2018Terry, it’s the Sheriff’s Department. Open the door.\u2019 Sabo opened the door and stood in the doorway, physically blocking McCune’s entry. McCune asked, \u2018Terry, do you mind if I step inside and talk with you?\u2019 Sabo said nothing. Instead, he stepped back and to the side and let the door open.\u201d This was nonverbal consent. United States v. Sabo<\/a>, 724 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2013).*<\/p>\n A \u201croutine traffic checkpoint\u201d [whatever that is] led to the officer smelling alcohol in defendant\u2019s car and he wasn\u2019t wearing a seatbelt. One thing led to another and drugs and cash were found, and it was supported by the automobile exception. A second search warrant for the car was valid, too. United States v. Stapleton, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106667 (E.D. Ky. July 30, 2013), R&R 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107498 (E.D. Ky. May 8, 2013).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading