Apparent authority to consent to search of defendant’s guest room was valid because there were no limitations on access

Defendant’s host had the apparent authority to consent to a search of the place where defendant slept because there were no locks on the door and the host’s kids’ stuff was in there, too. Gado v. State, 882 N.E.2d 827 (Ind. App. 2008).*

Motion to suppress was properly granted because there appeared to be no legal basis for defendant’s stop by the officer, as confirmed to the trial court by the videotape of the stop. State v. Rager, 883 N.E.2d 136 (Ind. App. 2008).*

Indiana’s requirement that an affidavit be filed with the court is satisfied by delivery to the judge. Scott v. State, 883 N.E.2d 147 (Ind. App. 2008)*:

It is clear to us, however, that Deputy Saltzman delivered the affidavit “to the proper officer for the purpose of being kept on file by him in the proper place[,]” even if it was delayed in reaching that proper place. Thompson, 190 Ind. at 367, 130 N.E. at 413 (emphasis added). There is nothing in the record to suggest that Deputy Saltzman had any reason to believe that the affidavit would not be promptly filed with the clerk, and, in the end, we are at a loss to see how he could have more fully complied with Indiana Code section 35-33-5-2. We conclude that the affidavit supporting the October 10, 2006, search warrant was properly filed.

Knock and talk consent was valid; police engaged in no overbearing conduct and defendant knew what he was doing. Luna-Martinez v. State, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 4298 (2d DCA March 26, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.