CA5: The 4A doesn’t limit the number of officers that show up for an administrative search

This administrative search was valid. The number of officers showing up to do it isn’t a constitutional question. “Nor does the number of officers conducting the search change the inquiry. Hershner asserts no jurisprudential authority for the proposition that a search may become invalid if it involves too many police officers. Nor are we aware of such authority.” Hershner v. City of Dallas, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 25703 (5th Cir. Oct. 11, 2024).

“Under the totality of the circumstances, the officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion to conduct a protective sweep of Defendant’s residence and lawfully discovered and obtained Defendant’s firearm in plain view during this protective sweep. Additionally, an occupant of the bedroom searched advised that the gun found was not hers but the Defendants. The seized firearm was not the result of an unlawful, warrantless search, and the Defendant’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures were not violated.” State v. Walker, 2024 Del. Super. LEXIS 683 (Oct. 9, 2024).*

Defendant’s testimony at a bail hearing came in at trial. This Fifth Amendment claim did not violate the Simmons rule on the Fourth Amendment. The issue also isn’t adequately preserved. Turner v. State, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 7303 (Tex. App. – Tyler Oct. 9, 2024)* (unpublished) [Admitting ownership of property for a search claim is different than a bail claim. See F.R.E. 104(d) (“Cross-Examining a Defendant in a Criminal Case. By testifying on a preliminary question, a defendant in a criminal case does not become subject to cross-examination on other issues in the case.”).

This entry was posted in Administrative search, Privileges, Protective sweep, Reasonableness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.