{"id":330,"date":"2006-12-08T07:59:42","date_gmt":"2006-08-19T11:33:21","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2017-09-17T13:42:52","modified_gmt":"2017-09-17T18:42:52","slug":"en-us-182","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=330","title":{"rendered":"Federal cases received Saturday"},"content":{"rendered":"

Because officer testified that he thought small objects in defendant’s pockets could have been weapons, court decides that the patdown was reasonable. United States v. Hartz, 458 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. August 17, 2006) (Note:<\/em> This is an invitation for testimony that will validate every patdown.).<\/p>\n

Court finds consent to enter and search for defendant was not proved to be voluntary. Court held a three day suppression hearing and finds six significant inconsistencies in the testimony of the officers involved that undermines their credibility. United States v. Medina, 451 F. Supp. 2d 262 (D. Mass. August 17, 2006).<\/p>\n

“Georgia v. Randolph doesn’t require police officers to obtain affirmative consent from every known occupant of a residence. They had the consent of one occupant — Ms. Foster. No other occupant was present and objecting. If Ms. Foster’s consent was voluntary, the entry and search were reasonable.” Digital recordings of the exchange between the officer and the consenter show it to be voluntary. United States v. Reed, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57666 (N.D. Ind. August 3, 2006).<\/p>\n

Document search included items in boxes not within the warrant, but this does not require suppression of the entire search. “This does not mean that seizure of these documents justifies suppression of the other ten boxes of documents. The extreme remedy of suppression of documents that were otherwise lawfully seized and within the probable cause showing of the affidavit is justified only if the overall search manifested ‘flagrant action’ in derogation of the Fourth Amendment. U.S. v. Lambert,<\/em> 771 F.2d 83, 93 (6th Cir. 1985).” The court compares cases of overseizures and this one does not measure up. United States v. Altiere, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57753 (N.D. Ohio March 1, 2006).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evGMco.b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-330","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/330","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=330"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/330\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":29139,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/330\/revisions\/29139"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=330"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=330"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=330"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}