CA3: Delaware “hit and hold” practice for entries not decided because of consent

The court declines to decide the officers’ “hit and hold” entries where they entered without a warrant but under alleged exigency, secured the premises, and then sought a search warrant. Because there was independent justification for the warrantless search after the fact by consent before a warrant issued, there’s no need to decide whether the practice is legal. United States v. Alexander, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 33020 (3d Cir. Nov. 30, 2022).*

Defendant’s bad driving suggested DUI and that’s exigency. State v. Weemhoff, 2022-Ohio-4263, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 4010 (5th Dist. Nov. 29, 2022).*

After defendant’s conviction, his firearms were no longer needed as evidence, and they can be returned to an intermediary, just not him. United States v. Vermilyea, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214770 (D. Ariz. Nov. 29, 2022).*

Defendant’s flight from the stop and dropping his cell phone was an abandonment. State v. Mills, 2022 Del. Super. LEXIS 1408 (Nov. 28, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Abandonment, Arrest or entry on arrest, Emergency / exigency, Independent source, Rule 41(g) / Return of property. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.