CA11: Apparent phone call from detained confederate to house was exigency

Police arrest of a confederate during a long surveillance of house was exigency [but not police created] for a warrantless entry into the house until they could get a search warrant. The confederate made a call, and defendant was on the phone. It was reasonable to conclude it was a warning. United States v. Lockett, 533 Fed. Appx. 957 (11th Cir. 2013).

The second search of defendant’s property two months after he was in custody was with consent of the co-tenant. United States v. Denton, 535 Fed. Appx. 832 (11th Cir. 2013).*

When defendant is a known meth manufacturer, possession of peroxide in the car is incriminating and in plain view. State v. Binkley, 2013 Ohio 3695, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 3817 (5th Dist. August 26, 2013).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.