PC was lacking for a warrantless arrest on an abduction charge. Because the arrest was without a warrant, the officers’ actions are not entitled to the deference they would otherwise have under Gates. Lack of a record as to the meaning of lack of PC on the remainder of the actions of the police in obtaining defendant’s consent while in custody requires a remand to develop the record. United States v. Griffith, 193 Fed. Appx. 538 (6th Cir. August 24, 2006)* (unpublished).

The DEA subpoenaed records from an Indiana garden supply store that it was hoping would link the customers to marijuana grow operations. Defendant’s name merely being on their customer list was not reasonable suspicion for a trash search under Litchfield. State v. Cook, 853 N.E.2d 483 (Ind. App. August 25, 2006).

Pulling over a vehicle for a “public safety stop” because the rear wheels were bouncing badly and because the gas cap door was open led to the officer ordering everybody out of the vehicle and running wants and warrants on them. The officer asked for permission to do a “quick search.” While public safety stops are permissible, the videotape belied the officer’s testimony about the reasons for the stop. State v. Gonzales, 36 Kan. App. 2d 446, 141 P.3d 501 (August 25, 2006):

In fact, a review of the videotape raises serious questions whether Brockman was truly concerned with the safety of the tire. When Brockman approached the truck, he said “hello” and advised the occupants that he stopped them because the hatch cover was open and their tire was bouncing. At this time, he closed the hatch. Then Brockman immediately began asking who owned the truck and asked for the occupants’ driver’s licenses. Quickly thereafter, Severo Gonzales (the passenger) was asked to step out of the truck. Brockman asked him to come back to the patrol car and then questioned him some more about the truck’s ownership. The trooper asked the dispatcher to run “triple I’s” on the occupants. Leaving Gonzales in the patrol car, the trooper returned to the truck and asked the driver if there were any weapons in the truck. Only after all that investigation was completed did the trooper finally look at the tire and notice it was bald in many spots and suggested to the driver that it should be replaced. The examination of the tire did not occur until at least 8 minutes into the stop.

Search voided under Randolph. Defendant objected to search, so the police went to a co-tenant to get consent. Odom v. State, 200 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi August 24, 2006).*