Defendant stayed at the premises searched for two nights before the search, so he had standing. The warrantless entry, however, was based on exigent circumstances as found by the magistrate [about which we are not told]. United States v. Louisuis, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53344 (M.D. Fla. August 2, 2006).*<\/p>\n
Off duty police officer was found by neighbors wandering the streets in long underwear, and they called the police. They found him, and he was obviously either having a psychotic break or on drugs. Officers went into his house over his objection because the door was open, and they retrieved his prescription drugs for the doctors to determine whether he was under the influence. Questions remain on SJ, so defendants’ MSJ denied. Ripley v. City of Lake City, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53346 (M.D. Fla. August 2, 2006).*<\/p>\n
There was a substantial basis for crediting the CI after corroboration. Alternatively, there the GFE exception relies because the affidavit is obviously not so bare bones that it could not be objectively relied upon. United States v. Bradshaw, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53414 (W.D. Mich. August 2, 2006).*<\/p>\n
Where there was a sign warning that telephone calls were recorded, defendant has no REP in telephone calls from a jail cell area that were routinely recorded. United States v. Plummer, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53479 (W.D. Pa. August 2, 2006).*<\/p>\n
AZ DPS racial and ethnic profile class action settlement approved prohibiting profile stops. Arnold v. Arizona Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53315 (D. Ariz. July 31, 2006).*<\/p>\n
IAC claim for failure to file a motion to suppress fails because defendant does not even allege that consent was coerced. United States v. Sandoval, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53176 (D. Neb. July 31, 2006).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evGMco.b2evALnk.b2WPAutP.b2evSmil Continue reading