Patdown produced a lighter and the officer saw a straw protruding from the pocket. In the watch pocket was a folded dollar bill. Despite the fact the officer knew that dollar bills could be folded and contain drugs, the inherently legal nature of the dollar bill prohibited the officer from searching it. Grandison v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 316, 645 S.E.2d 298 (2007).<\/p>\n
Defendant’s patdown was unjustified under the circumstances, and consent was sought at the same time. When a consent to a search is preceded by a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the State, in addition to proving the voluntariness of the consent, must also establish a break in the causal connection between the illegality and the evidence thereby obtained. When a request for consent is virtually simultaneous with an illegal pat-down search and there is no break in the activity between the pat-down search and the consent, the consent is not voluntary as a matter of law, and the evidence must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree under Wong Sun<\/em>. State v. Burton, 37 Kan. App. 2d 916, 159 P.3d 209 (2007).<\/p>\n In a post-conviction proceeding, the defendant carries the burden of showing why a Fourth Amendment claim was not raised. Otherwise, relitigating it is barred by res judicata. State v. King, 2007 Ohio 2810, 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 2605 (5th Dist. May 30, 2007).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading