NM: Protective sweep that included looking in a hole in the wall of a closet was unreasonable

A protective sweep did not permit officers to look in a hole in the wall in a closet where buy-money was found stashed. The state’s argument defendant had no standing in the apartment was based solely on his own testimony that he had been staying there three weeks. That was enough for standing. State v. Sublet, 2011 NMCA 75, 150 N.M. 378, 258 P.3d 1170 (2011).*

The officer had reasonable suspicion that defendant was involved in attempted burglary of cars when the car he was a passenger in was stopped. Defendant had no standing in the car under Rakas, and Gant did not apply. State v. K.N., 66 So. 3d 380 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).*

The record supports the conclusion that defendant consented to a search of his pockets during a stop. State v. Baxter, 2011 Iowa App. LEXIS 729 (July 27, 2011).*

Defendant’s public urination justified his stop. State v. Pack, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 580 (July 26, 2011).*