Defendant\u2019s live-in girlfriend went to the courthouse and obtained an emergency protection order (EPO) which, under West Virginia law, required the respondent to rid himself of firearms. Here, she specifically alleged that she\u2019d been threatened with a gun. Police came to the house, defendant let them in, and they took 22 guns. The officer testified that if defendant didn\u2019t surrender the guns, they\u2019d have to get a search warrant. It was cordial and nonthreatening. Back at the police station, the police found that one had a scratched off serial number and others came back as stolen according to NCIC. They obtained a search warrant for the house after that. The original search was by the consent of the girlfriend and by the defendant. The warrant was properly issued. United States v. Spurlock, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171968 (S.D.W.Va. December 12, 2014).<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s assertion that \u201cit defies logic\u201d that a baggie of drugs was protruding from defendant\u2019s pocket and in plain view was simply incorrect. The pocket was shallow and couldn\u2019t be buttoned. United States v. Rico-Duron, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171920 (E.D. Ky. December 10, 2014).*<\/p>\n
In a vandalism and arson case, the police had probable cause to arrest defendant because his hands had the same paint on them found on the victim\u2019s car. State v. Wright<\/a>, 2014-Ohio-5424, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 5252 (8th Dist. December 11, 2014).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant\u2019s live-in girlfriend went to the courthouse and obtained an emergency protection order (EPO) which, under West Virginia law, required the respondent to rid himself of firearms. Here, she specifically alleged that she\u2019d been threatened with a gun. Police came … Continue reading