MO: Def’s arrest violated state law but not the 4A, so it was not unreasonable

“This appeal presents the question of whether a police officer necessarily violates the Fourth Amendment when he makes an arrest that is prohibited by state law. Relying upon Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164, 128 S. Ct. 1598, 170 L. Ed. 2d 559 (2008), we answer that question in the negative. Pursuant to Moore, the Fourth Amendment requires only that an officer’s warrantless arrest be based upon probable cause. Because the vast majority of the evidence presented at the suppression hearing in this case was focused solely upon the officer having made an arrest outside of his territorial jurisdiction in violation of state law — and we cannot discern the circuit court’s legal basis for granting the motion — we reverse the ruling and remand the case to allow the circuit court to determine whether the illegal arrest was supported by probable cause and rule accordingly.” State v. Barton, 2022 Mo. App. LEXIS 662 (Oct. 25, 2022).

Defendant’s traffic stop was unreasonably delayed for a drug dog to arrive, and the record shows the officer’s superiors directed that. United States v. Clark, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194538 (W.D. Va. Oct. 24, 2022).*

Landlord’s photographic tip parolee had an AR-15 in his house was enough for a parole search. United States v. Fane, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194166 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 25, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Dog sniff, Probation / Parole search, Reasonableness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.