A city ordinance that permitted inspection of sexually oriented businesses was construed as applied to save it because it had a provision that even non-public areas were subject to inspection at any time. The ordinance had not been applied yet in a manner that would make it unconstitutional as applied, but it was subject to abuse, and the court recognized that the owner could lawfully refuse inspection of non-public areas of the premises, should that occur. Wal Juice Bar v. City of Oak Grove, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29698 (W.D. Ky. April 10, 2008).*<\/p>\n
Officers had information from a CI that defendant had an absconding “high risk” parolee staying with him. They went there to arrest him. Regardless of whether they had probable cause to believe that the parolee would actually be there, they saw him lying on the couch when defendant opened his door, and they entered when defendant tried to shut the door. After the entry, they “cleared the apartment” in a protective sweep and found a gun under the bed. The entry and sweep were valid. United States v. Reinhart, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29087 (N.D. Iowa April 8, 2008).*<\/p>\n
An 18 year old woman in a high school locker room saw a partially open locker and opened it and found a videocamera. She took out the camera, rewound it, and found images of the defendant placing it there. Defendant was questioned about it by the police, and he admitted placing it. The video and his admission were used to get a search warrant for his house and computers because he had no office at school to store anything. The warrant for his house was issued with probable cause and the good faith exception would apply anyway. Child porn was found on his computer at home. United States v. Mann, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29279 (N.D. Ind. April 8, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading