Police entered because of a hostage situation. Removal of a nailed down plywood cover wasn\u2019t valid as a protective sweep, but it was under exigent circumstances. United States v. Cooks, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83992 (N.D.Ala. April 28, 2017), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82811 (N.D. Ala. May 31, 2017).<\/p>\n
Defendant was in a rented car that wasn\u2019t rented by him, and his passenger was subject to an arrest warrant. The officer told him to \u201chold tight\u201d while he checked on whether the state with the warrant would extradite. When he found out that they would, he was willing to let defendant drive off in the rented car as a courtesy. The delay was reasonable and didn\u2019t involve his rights. As for a dog sniff, \u201c[u]nder the circumstances, the officers had reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop (if it was prolonged at all) to conduct the sniff.\u201d United States v. Simeon, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83991 (N.D.Ala. March 26, 2017), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82813 (N.D. Ala. May 31, 2017).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Police entered because of a hostage situation. Removal of a nailed down plywood cover wasn\u2019t valid as a protective sweep, but it was under exigent circumstances. United States v. Cooks, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83992 (N.D.Ala. April 28, 2017), adopted, … Continue reading