CA5: No police wrongdoing here to support “police created exigency”

Defendant came in to the police for an interview about sex assault in the Army. As it developed, exigency for seizure of defendant’s cell phone arose. This was not a police created exigency which requires some wrongdoing on the part of the police. Everyone concedes this was routine until then. United States v. Yeong Song, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 19843 (5th Cir. Aug. 1, 2023).

A search warrant doesn’t have to be present at the time of the search to be valid (Grubbs). The court credits that there was a search warrant and it wasn’t all made up as defendant alleges. State v. Queen, 2023 Del. Super. LEXIS 360 (July 31, 2023).*

Handcuffing for officer safety during a stop-and-frisk doesn’t require probable cause. “In determining whether use of handcuffs during an investigatory detention is warranted, the Court may consider the seriousness of the crime under investigation.” Here, it was factually justified. United States v. Pendergrass, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133118 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 1, 2023).*

Defendant’s post-conviction claim the warrant was issued without probable cause couldn’t be decided without putting it in the record. State v. Cooper, 2023 Del. Super. LEXIS 365 (July 31, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Burden of proof, Emergency / exigency, Seizure, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.