Defendant was arrested outside his house, and a firearm expected to be on him was not found during his search incident. There was expected to be another person in the house, and that, coupled with the unaccounted for gun, was exigency for an entry while the police were waiting for a warrant. [Note: Protective sweep isn\u2019t mentioned, but that doesn\u2019t answer the initial question: the legality of the entry and then the look.] United States v. Mitchell, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106563 (W.D. Mo. May 15, 2018). <\/p>\n
Defense counsel was not ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress the officer\u2019s entry into his backyard with his wife\u2019s consent to look for a dead dog. Once the officer was there, the dog was in plain view. State v. Curll<\/a>, 2018 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 470 (June 26, 2018).*<\/p>\n The defendant\u2019s affidavit that he lived at the address searched and he was on release there wasn\u2019t sufficient to establish his standing in this circuit. United States v. Pennick, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106456 (W.D. N.Y. June 26, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant was arrested outside his house, and a firearm expected to be on him was not found during his search incident. There was expected to be another person in the house, and that, coupled with the unaccounted for gun, was … Continue reading