D.S.C.: UnMirandized admission of gun in car created exigent circumstances

It was reasonable for the officer to ask about defendant having a firearm in the car when responding to a 911 call without Mirandizing him under its “public safety exception.” When defendant admitted there was a gun, the officer had exigent circumstances to find it and neutralize it. United States v. Graham, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122426 (D.S.C. September 15, 2015).

2255 petitioner’s conclusory allegations that defense counsel did not pursue a motion to suppress is denied. No facts or issues are identified. Irvin v. United States, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122506 (N.D.Tex. September 15, 2015).*

The CI’s information about defendant’s current activities was corroborated by his five heroin deals with defendant. United States v. Altemus, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122824 (E.D.Mo. March 9, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Emergency / exigency, Ineffective assistance, Informant hearsay. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.