Codefendants who did not live at the premises had no standing to contest the presence of a drug dog in the front yard to sniff. Codefendants\u2019 brief presence at a grow operation, with other things, was still probable cause for a search warrant for their cars despite their having MMJ cards because state law does not immunize criminal plant growth. United States v. Zhiqiang Liu, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1697 (E.D. Cal. January 6, 2015).<\/p>\n
The Randolph<\/a> veto and third-party consent doesn\u2019t apply when defendant didn\u2019t refuse consent. United States v. Ingram<\/a>, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 278 (4th Cir. January 8, 2015).<\/p>\n Defendant\u2019s car was not \u201cmobile\u201d for the automobile exception under the state constitution. It was parked at a bank, the officer saw defendant walking toward the car, talked to him, and surmised that he was really high on meth, and he requested that he not drive. Defendant acceded and walked away. After defendant was gone, the officer looked in the window of the car and saw a duffle bag with a small baggie of marijuana protruding from it. Defendant returned, asked the bank manager to drive him home, and the bank manager declined. He didn\u2019t attempt to drive the car. It was not \u201cmobile\u201d for the automobile exception under state case law. State v. Baiz<\/a>, 2014 Ore. App. LEXIS 1852 (January 7, 2015).* [Note that this Lexis citation will change when they notice it’s wrong.]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Codefendants who did not live at the premises had no standing to contest the presence of a drug dog in the front yard to sniff. Codefendants\u2019 brief presence at a grow operation, with other things, was still probable cause for … Continue reading