Witness found from illegal search not suppressed under Ceccolini

Applying Ceccolini, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeals refuses to suppress the testimony of a witness found as a result of an arguably illegal search. Wells v. State, 975 So. 2d 1235 (4th DCA 2008).

Furtive movement to the glove compartment, although subject to innocent explanation, can be reasonable suspicion. United States v. Thomas, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18856 (S.D. Ohio February 26, 2008):

Defendant argues that his gestures toward the glove compartment could have been innocent, such as to retrieve the vehicle’s registration information. While this is true, “[a] determination that reasonable suspicion exists … need not rule out the possibility of innocent conduct.” United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 277 (2002). The issue is not whether each factor in isolation is susceptible of an innocent explanation, but rather whether taken as a whole the factors are sufficient to form a particularized and objective basis for concluding that reasonable suspicion existed. Id. at 277-78. As the Court continues to explain further, the totality of the circumstances, including the Defendant’s behavior inside the vehicle, established a reasonable suspicion that he was armed and dangerous.

Accordingly, in this case, the Defendant’s furtive movements within the interior of the vehicle properly factored into Officer Winter’s suspicion that the Defendant was armed and dangerous.

Defendant lived with his aunt, and she was cleaning his room and found marijuana which she put in the nightstand. She consented to a police entry, and it was with apparent authority. State v. Putnam, 2008 Wisc. App. LEXIS 190 (March 11, 2008).*

An excessive force case that could have been settled for $50,000 and an apology was contested by the City, which finally lost. The total tab now: about $500,000, including interest and attorney’s fees, according to the San Jose Mercury News.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.