ID: Lack of objection to body cam video showing refusal of consent wasn’t plain error

The police properly seized defendant’s home to preserve evidence of murder on exigent circumstances. There was also a reasonable protective sweep. Defendant didn’t object to the body cam video that had a refusal to consent to the house search, and it wasn’t plain error. The state never mentioned it in close. [The court, without saying it, finds it de facto harmless.] State v. Smith, 2020 Ida. App. LEXIS 12 (Mar. 3, 2020).*

Plaintiff sued over seizure of all the money from its bank account by a warrant, and it sought return under Rule 41(g). The warrant was particular. The claim of no probable cause didn’t come until appeal, so it was waived. Even so, there was probable cause. Alvix Labs., L.L.C. v. United States, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 6656 (5th Cir. Mar. 3, 2020).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Emergency / exigency, Rule 41(g) / Return of property. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.