Defendant\u2019s mother allowed him to store some boxes in her storage shed, and he didn\u2019t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the shed. When she consented to a search of the shed, that permitted the police to search closed boxes inside. Defense counsel thus wasn\u2019t ineffective for not challenging the search. United States v. Goff, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68463 (W.D. Va. May 27, 2015).*<\/p>\n
Officers had probable cause to believe defendant was operating his Segway under the influence, so they had qualified immunity. Greenman v. Jessen<\/a>, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8807 (8th Cir. May 28, 2015).*<\/p>\n The evidence supported that the impoundment of defendant\u2019s car after arrest was justified and conducted within policy. The car was stopped for equipment violations, and it shouldn\u2019t be driven anyway. The record supports that the search was not a \u201cgeneral rummaging.\u201d The state waived contesting standing by not arguing it below. Wilford v. State<\/a>, 2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 423 (May 27, 2015).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant\u2019s mother allowed him to store some boxes in her storage shed, and he didn\u2019t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the shed. When she consented to a search of the shed, that permitted the police to search closed … Continue reading