Daily Archives: October 18, 2019

OH5: Staleness argument fails as to ongoing MJ grow operation

Information about a marijuana grow operation was ongoing by its nature, so staleness is more flexible as to it and information can be older. Also, the good faith exception would apply. State v. Laubacher, 2019-Ohio-4271, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 4343 … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Staleness | Comments Off on OH5: Staleness argument fails as to ongoing MJ grow operation

TX10: The search and seizure issue in the trial court needs to be the same as the one presented on appeal or it’s waived

The search and seizure issue in the trial court needs to be the same as the one presented on appeal or it’s waived. “Villareal’s complaint on appeal that the trial court erred in denying Villareal’s motion to suppress as to … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof | Comments Off on TX10: The search and seizure issue in the trial court needs to be the same as the one presented on appeal or it’s waived

IL: Merely radioing for a drug dog did not materially extend a stop that was only 3 minutes long

This case is on post-conviction, and defendant attached a police report to his petition. Based on the police report, the mere act of radioing for a drug dog did not appreciably extend the stop which took three minutes. People v. … Continue reading

Posted in Pretext, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on IL: Merely radioing for a drug dog did not materially extend a stop that was only 3 minutes long

CA6: Codef’s appeal from same suppression hearing already affirmed, so that’s law of the case [even though he didn’t get to brief it, so how fair is that?]

The codefendant’s appeal on the same grounds, from the same suppression hearing was affirmed in July. That’s law of the case as to this defendant. United States v. Thompson, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 30910 (6th Cir. Oct. 16, 2019). “Carter … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on CA6: Codef’s appeal from same suppression hearing already affirmed, so that’s law of the case [even though he didn’t get to brief it, so how fair is that?]

OH: On LPN check, car not matching color on registration is enough for a stop to see if it’s stolen

“When an officer encounters a vehicle the whole of which is painted a different color from the color listed in the vehicle-registration records and the officer believes, based on his experience, that the vehicle or its displayed license plates may … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on OH: On LPN check, car not matching color on registration is enough for a stop to see if it’s stolen