Defendant was arrested outside his house and officers entered to conduct a protective sweep for protection of evidence. The protective sweep produced nothing. They brought him inside handcuffed and, unMirandized, told him they had probable cause for a warrant and would get one, but he could consent so they wouldn\u2019t tear the place up. The consent was not voluntary. United States v. Watson, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145429 (E.D. N.C. October 9, 2014).*<\/p>\n
Defendant beat up and strangled his girlfriend and then fell asleep. She \u201csnuck out of the house\u201d and called police who came, observed her injuries, and then entered the place with her consent to arrest and search. The search incident of defendant\u2019s person was valid. The further search of their place was with her consent, and a firearm was found that defendant appropriated from her as his own. A cell phone search warrant was properly issued, and a picture of a firearm was found on it. United States v. Lowe, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145458 (D. Nev. October 10, 2014),* R&R 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145457 (D. Nev. August 11, 2014).*<\/p>\n
Defense counsel was not ineffective for not pursuing a motion to suppress the search of an apartment the police were searching with a warrant when he arrived and attempted to enter and then fled when he saw the police. First, he had no standing [despite having a key?]. Second, the search was the product of a search warrant, not his arrest after he fled from the scene. Louis v. United States, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145773 (M.D. Fla. October 10, 2014).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant was arrested outside his house and officers entered to conduct a protective sweep for protection of evidence. The protective sweep produced nothing. They brought him inside handcuffed and, unMirandized, told him they had probable cause for a warrant and … Continue reading