Officers stopped the plaintiff walking with earphones on and had to repeatedly call from him to stop with the PA system in the patrol car. The area was known for vandalism. Genuine issues of fact precluded MSJ for defendants on legality of the stop. D’Addio v. Maldonado, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18848 (D. Conn. March 2, 2006).*<\/p>\n
Government brought a taint team and an AUSA to a document search, and some documents were lawfully seized but inadmissible for lack of nexus to the crime to be tried. Because some were unjustifiably seized does not warrant suppression of the remainder. United States v. Altiere, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18815 (N.D. Ohio March 1, 2006).<\/p>\n
Search of medical marijuana user’s property was suppressed on appeal because the affidavit did not show that his conduct was unlawful. People v. Russell, 138 Cal. App. 4th 723, 41 Cal. Rptr. 3d 668 (3d Dist. March 16, 2006, changed from unpublished to published April 14, 2006): <\/p>\n
Here, there was even less indication defendant’s actions were criminal. The only evidence set forth in the affidavit was the observance of marijuana plants outside defendant’s residence, and defendant had clearly indicated to any observer that the plants were being cultivated lawfully. The affidavits’ boiler plate language that, “subjects who cultivate cannabis outdoors will frequently start cultivating the cannabis plants indoors, prior to the outdoor cannabis cultivation season, so the cannabis plants are larger,” does not add to the probable cause determination under the facts of this case. The typical actions of an illegal cannabis cultivator are not necessarily the same as those of qualified patients or caregivers cultivating the plants legally. Moreover, the affidavit indicated indoor cultivation usually takes place before the outdoor cultivation season, which lasts from April to October. The search took place in August, during the outdoor cultivation season when there was no reason to suspect indoor cultivation.<\/p>\n
Under the circumstances of this case, where the defendant clearly posted his status as a qualified patient in a manner that was susceptible of verification, and the only facts presented by the affidavit were of legal activity occurring on the premises, there was no probable cause to issue the search warrant. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Class action status for alleged dragnet detentions failed because of the factual differences between the claimants. Brown v State, 2006 NY Slip Op 26141, 2006 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 797 (Ct. Cl. February 10, 2006).<\/p>\n
DUI arrest led to valid vehicle inventory that led to finding child porn and used condoms with female names written on them. That led to a valid search warrant for defendant’s house. State v. Thompson, 2006 Ohio 1836, 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 1690 (8th Dist. April 13, 2006). <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evGMco.b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading