Officers did not have probable cause to believe that the place searched was probationer defendant’s residence. He was a guest in somebody else’s house, the place he was suspected of delivering drugs from. Therefore, the entry without a warrant was unlawful. United States v. McAdoo, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22231 (C.D. Cal. March 6, 2008):<\/p>\n
In United States v. Howard<\/em>, the Ninth Circuit surveyed thirty years of relevant caselaw and noted four “patterns” among those cases in which the court found probable cause:<\/p>\n
(1) the probationer “gave [the officers] good reason to suspect that the [probationer] was using [the searched home] as his home base”;
\n(2) the probationer had a key to the searched residence;
\n(3) the probationer (or someone close to him) admitted that he resided at the searched home; and
\n(4) the probationer “did not appear to be residing at any address other than the one searched.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n447 F.3d at 1266. These patterns are not required elements, but cases upholding a search typically contain at least three of the Howard patterns.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Comment:<\/em> This case is an intriguing explanation of the four factors finding them all deficient or weak in this case.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading