{"id":1577,"date":"2008-04-06T18:34:38","date_gmt":"2007-12-03T06:46:39","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-12-03T06:46:39","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1577","title":{"rendered":"Frisk of car for weapons did not permit a full search"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant’s car was impounded because of his driver’s license, and he asked if he could get some things out of the car before it was towed. The officer decided to search for weapons for officer protection, but instead did a complete search of the car, including searching in a dayplanner and the trunk. The search was excessive and violated the Fourth Amendment. State v. Warren<\/a>,38 Kan. App. 2d 697, 171 P.3d 656 (2007).<\/p>\n

A search incident under Kansas law is statutorily the same as Belton<\/em><\/a> and Thornton<\/em><\/a> by a change in statute from the search being for “the crime” to “a crime.” Here, the defendant had just gotten out of the car when he was arrested, so a search incident was proper. State v. Henning<\/a>, 38 Kan. App. 2d 706, 171 P.3d 660 (2007).<\/p>\n

Stop was based on reasonable suspicion from a tipster that was corroborated and involved hiding a black bag under the hood. Once the defendant was stopped and admitted having marijuana on him, a search incident was proper. State v. Cheickne, 2007 Ohio 6334, 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 5567 (1st Dist. November 30, 2007).*<\/p>\n

Defendant was stopped for driving on a road closed to all but residents, but the officer had no idea whether defendant was a resident. The stop was unreasonable. State v. Hoard<\/a>, 2007 Wisc. App. LEXIS 1041 (November 29, 2007):<\/p>\n

P20 We note that the circuit court stated that if Hoard had not lived within the closed area, he could not challenge the stop. We disagree. The analysis of the lawfulness of a traffic stop does not depend on what the officer learns after the stop but on whether, at the time of the stop, the officer had reasonable suspicion for making the stop. Thus, whether Hoard was or was not lawfully driving in the closed area, the analysis of the lawfulness of the stop is the same.<\/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-1577","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1577","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=1577"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1577\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1577"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1577"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1577"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}