{"id":9848,"date":"2013-12-18T10:15:39","date_gmt":"2013-11-23T09:47:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2013-11-23T09:47:00","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=9848","title":{"rendered":"UT: Apparent hand-to-hand drug deal in place notorious for it was RS"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>An apparent hand-to-hand drug deal occurred on a convenience store parking lot. There were possible innocent explanations, but this particular place was notorious to the police. Where the car parked, the length of the meeting, the officer\u2019s vast experience, the bad history of his particular place all factored into the officer\u2019s assessment of reasonable suspicion, and it is credited. Granted, cases elsewhere say that an apparent hand-to-hand deal alone is not enough but the court decides there was considerably more here. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.utcourts.gov\/opinions\/appopin\/anderson0864112113.pdf\">State v. Anderson<\/a>, 2013 Utah App. LEXIS 277 (November 21, 2013).<\/p>\n<p>The search warrant for the entirety of a flea market to get to defendant\u2019s booth where he was selling counterfeit stuff was not overbroad because it couldn\u2019t be compared to a case of searching an entire building with discrete living or working units inside. And, of course, the good faith exception saves it. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sconet.state.oh.us\/rod\/docs\/pdf\/10\/2013\/2013-ohio-5139.pdf\">State v. Baro<\/a>, 2013-Ohio-5139, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 5356 (10th Dist. November 21, 2013).* [Apparently only his booth was searched, so what\u2019s the complaint? An overbroad warrant that was never broadly executed is far less of a viable issue.]<\/p>\n<p>A \u201ccitizen informant\u201d set up a drug deal, and the police came in to complete it. Crediting her statements in full, the best that can be said is that it gave reasonable suspicion for a stop. Here, defendant was stopped and searched by the police solely on the citizen informant\u2019s story which had not been fully corroborated. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.in.gov\/judiciary\/opinions\/pdf\/11211301mm.pdf\">Kelly v. State<\/a>, 997 N.E.2d 1045 (Ind. 2013).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=9848\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9848","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9848","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=9848"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9848\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9848"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9848"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9848"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}