LA: Def consented to coming to stationhouse and statement and searches there

The trial court determined that defendant consented to go with the officers to the station to talk about a murder, and that finding is supported by the record. Although not detained, he was Mirandized, and his statement was voluntary. He was also found to have consented to the taking of his boots, fingernail scrapings, fingerprints, and buccal swabs. State v. Coleman, 2016 La. LEXIS 370 (La. Feb. 26, 2016).*

“Based on the corroborated emergency call, the presence of Defendant in a high-crime area, the nature of the suspected offense, Defendant’s peculiar behavior, and the presence of a visible and suspicious bulge on Defendant’s outer clothing, Officer Gudes reasonably suspected that Defendant was involved in the commission of a burglary.” Thus, a patdown was permissible. United States v. English, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24444 (M.D.Fla. Feb. 5, 2016),* adopted United States v. English, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24440 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 29, 2016).*

Plaintiff’s seizure by dog bite claim was a legal conclusion without factual support, so the district court did not err in granting summary judgment. Sebastian v. Douglas County, 2016 CO 13, 2016 Colo. LEXIS 192 (Feb. 29, 2016).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Reasonable suspicion, Seizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.