TN: Search before SW arrived saved by inevitable discovery

Defendant’s house and car were opened during the long period waiting for a search warrant to arrive. What was found in the car wasn’t in plain view, but its discovery was valid under inevitable discovery doctrine because the search warrant was in the process of being obtained and was. There was a subsequent search under the warrant. State v. Flinn, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1058 (December 3, 2013).

The emergency search in this case was not shown to be plain error because there was some justification for it. State v. Lerch, 2013-Ohio-5305, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 5519 (9th Dist. December 4, 2013).*

The office encountered defendant at 4:30 am, but it was not a seizure. The police car had no top lights on, and the officer parked 20-25′ from him. The officer asked questions, got his ID, wrote down the information, handed it back, and then asked about weapons. It was all by consent. State v. McDowell, 2013-Ohio-5300, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 5514 (10th Dist. December 3, 2013).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.