Finger and palmprints were in plain view and could be seized under a search warrant

Consent had been obtained to search a boat on a trailer on the roadside, as a Coast Guard inspection. Officers in the meantime got a search warrant for the boat. The fingerprints and palmprints were in plain view for seizure under the search warrant. United States v. Zaldivar, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83460 (M.D. Fla. November 16, 2006).

Factors in reasonable suspicion were (1) furtive movement, (2) “nervous demeanor,” and (3) stop was in “reasonably high-crime area.” United States v. Meredith, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43940 (E.D. La. July 6, 2005).*

Defendant’s guilty plea waived his right to appeal search claim. Johnson v. State, 282 Ga. App. 464, 638 S.E.2d 873 (November 17, 2006).*

Even if defendant revoked his consent, it occurred after admissions were made, which remained admissible. State v. Beckwith, 725 N.W.2d 659 (Iowa App. November 16, 2006).

Officers got word from a farm supply store that a woman in a particular vehicle bought two bottles of iodine. Officers cruised by the house until the vehicle arrived, waited a while, and then did a knock and talk. The woman came to the door with iodine stains on her hands and wafting from the house was the unmistakable smell of an operating meth lab. Entry was justified. Bottom v. Commonwealth, 2006 Ky. App. LEXIS 340 (November 17, 2006).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.