{"id":1265,"date":"2007-10-27T15:58:01","date_gmt":"2007-08-19T11:19:40","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-08-19T11:19:40","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1265","title":{"rendered":"Probable cause for a warrantless entry in a drug case was lacking, so all state’s proferred justifications for the entry failed"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendants were suspected of running drugs from Florida to Maine in their van, and the police entered their house without a warrant. “[*P36] Because probable cause did not exist to search the apartment without the information gained from the warrantless entry into the apartment, none of the above discussed exceptions to the warrant requirement or the exclusionary rule apply, and the evidence seized from the Rabons’ apartment during the initial warrantless entry and the subsequent search pursuant to the warrant should have been ordered suppressed.” The court explored in great detail every justification for a warrantless entry proferred by the state and excluded them all because all depended on probable cause. The informant provided only general information that anyone would know and not “inside information” sufficient to create probable cause. State v. Rabon<\/a>, 2007 ME 113, 930 A.2d 268 (2007).* (Comment:<\/em> This is an interesting and fascinating case. The court took all of the state’s justifications for the warrantless entry and carefully analyzed them, finding that each depended upon probable cause. This is worth the read, just for re-educating yourself on the basics of warrantless entries and the need for probable cause.)<\/p>\n

Entry by consent led to officer seeing defendant with a crack pipe in his hand, which was quickly pocketed. The officer was justified in a patdown for officer safety, and retrieving the crack pipe was justified by plain feel. State v. Wilson<\/a>, 2007 Ohio 4174, 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 3783 (8th Dist. August 16, 2007).*<\/p>\n

Defendant was in custody and not free to leave. After five hours she inculpated herself in a child’s death. She tried to leave and actually was permitted out of the building, but her boyfriend had the keys to the locked car, and he was inside being questioned, too. Initially, she was promised that she could leave. In the parking lot, entreaties from the officer got her back inside, and he contradicted earlier promises that she could leave any time by stating that she needed to clear things up about the death. On the totality, the court finds it was custodial and she believed she could only leave after telling him what he wanted. Morris v. State<\/a>, 871 N.E.2d 1011 (Ind. App. 2007):<\/p>\n

Also, it is clear from the recordings of Morris’s statements to Captain Davis that she very much wanted to go home after talking to him, and that indeed he had promised that she could go home after she finished talking to him. Nonetheless, after finishing talking to Captain Davis and while waiting in the lobby waiting for her mother and fiance to leave, Sergeant Haalck asked again to talk to her. This was a direct violation of Captain Davis’s earlier promise to her. Given the totality of the circumstances, this is the final straw that leads us to the conclusion that a reasonable person in Morris’s position would not have felt free to resist the entreaties of the police at that time, and that she was in custody when she gave her statements to Sergeant Haalck.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1265","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1265","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1265"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1265\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1265"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1265"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1265"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}