IA: Motion to suppress on legality of stop didn’t include patdown, too, but it’s valid

In the trial court, only the stop was challenged and not the patdown. On appeal, only the patdown was argued and not the stop. This is essentially waived, but what record the court has shows that the defendant was walking in the middle of the street and had a scuffle with the police and was arrested for it. The patdown was thus legal. State v. Beechum, 2013 Iowa App. LEXIS 592 (May 30, 2013).*

The record supports that defendant was speeding at night on a wet highway, and that’s probable cause for a stop. State v. Mackinnon, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 458 (May 29, 2013).*

Defendant was not getting back his computer under Rule 41(g) where it had child pornography on it. United States v. Penry, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 11076 (10th Cir. June 3, 2013).*

Any possible error in defendant’s statement taken at a time his DNA was taken, and the DNA was incidentally suppressed by the trial court, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Zornes, 831 N.W.2d 609 (Minn. 2013).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.