Third person with key to a storage locker had apparent authority to consent. Defendant showed that she held the key only in case he lost his, and she didn’t even know where the locker was. Nevertheless, the police were reasonable in their belief of her apparent authority and were not required to question her as to its true limits. United States v. Azubike, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8187 (D. Mass. March 3, 2006) (This is a tough case on the facts that could have gone either way. Is it reasonable for the police to reasonably believe in apparent authority when the consenter does not even know the location of the place to be searched? The First Circuit needs to look at this one.)<\/p>\n
Police watching pseudophedrine movement, on the totality, could conclude that there was PC to arrest and search the participants. It was coordinated and unlikely that the persons arrested were mere bystanders happening into the transactions. United States v. Zamora, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8196 (N.D. Ga. February 21, 2006), Magistrate’s R&R, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40775 (N.D. Ga. December 7, 2005) (released same day).*<\/p>\n
In view of standing law that “not every push or shove” during an arrest makes it unreasonable, particularly when view in the quiet of a judge’s chambers after the fact, the officer who pushed the plaintiff here did not use excessive force. Steele v. District of Columbia Housing Auth., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8239 (D. D.C. February 14, 2006).<\/p>\n
Officer had reasonable suspicion for stopping car that he had previously recently stopped and found driver without insurance and a suspended DL. On this stop, however, he found the mother of the previous driver actually driving. The stop was with RS because it was reasonable to believe that the driver would be the registered owner. State v. Hamic, 35 Kan. App. 202, 129 P.3d 114 (March 3, 2006) (Compare United States v. Laughrin, 438 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. March 2, 2006), posted March 3d (Kansas is in the 10th Cir.), apparently to the contrary. The only difference may be how long it had been since the last stop.)<\/p>\n
A field sobriety test need only be based on RS, not PC. Blasi v. State, 167 Md. App. 483, 893 A.2d 1152 (March 2, 2006).<\/p>\n
PC for arrest came from CI who said that defendant would be arriving in one of two specifically described vehicles in two hours at a particular location with crack cocaine. Officers had made drug arrests at the drop point before. State v. Hopkins, 2006 Ohio 967, 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 897 (6th Dist. March 3, 2006) (Note: This case just does not seem right. The analysis is too shallow to satisfy anybody except the police. The CI’s predictive information was specific, but it could have been of anybody doing a lawful act. There was nothing unique about the CI’s information that gave it any greater credence than a tip to set somebody up, which is what should be required.)<\/p>\n
Insurance fraud subpoena to doctor satisfied Fourth Amendment because the doctor had an opportunity for judicial review prior to enforcement. Also, the doctor-patient privilege cannot be invoked by the doctor to protect against an insurance fraud investigation. Burns v. Boyden, 2006 UT 14, 546 Utah Adv. Rep. 44, 133 P.3d 370 (March 3, 2006). <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evGMco.b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading