E.D.Va.: Seizing def as he was opening his door was an invasion of the curtilage without exigency

After an attempted traffic stop, following defendant to his front door and stopping him after the screen door was opened in between it and the front door was curtilage, even in an apartment building. There was no exigency justifying the officer’s entry into the home for the arrest. United States v. Maxwell, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61388 (E.D. Va. Apr. 6, 2023).*

Defendant’s claimed omissions for Franks purposes weren’t really omissions. They were discernable from the affidavit as a whole. A “reasonable officer standard” shouldn’t be applied to Franks violations. Here, some information was omitted by honest mistake, not to mislead. Moreover, even if the information had been included, the probable cause finding would not change. United States v. Glass, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61379 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 6, 2023).*

Defendant’s Ohio parole search was with reasonable suspicion as required by state law and was reasonable. United States v. Roush, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61202 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 6, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Curtilage, Emergency / exigency, Franks doctrine, Probation / Parole search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.