Officers had a SW for a DNA sample from the defendant, and he was believed to be at his girlfriend’s home. They entered and talking to him and got the DNA sample and left. He was a mere guest, not an overnight guest, and he lacked standing to complain of the police entry into his girlfriend’s house to get his DNA sample. State v. Browning, 2006 Ohio 3980, 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 3964 (6th Dist. August 4, 2006).*<\/p>\n
Defendant’s girlfriend’s roommate conducted a private search of defendant’s property to get child porn and turned it over to the police. State v. Purkhiser, 2006 Ohio 4014, 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 3969 (2d Dist. August 4, 2006).*<\/p>\n
The overnight guest of a motel guest has standing to challenge a search of the room. Brown v. State, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 6916 (Tex. App. \u2013 Houston (1st Dist.) August 3, 2006) (but this was with consent).<\/p>\n
Conflict of laws: While Washington requires both parties consent to a recording and Oregon is a single party consent state, a telephone call recorded in Oregon is admissible in Washington. The legality of the recording is determined by the place where the recording occurred (citing cases). State v. Fowler, 157 Wn.2d 387, 139 P.3d 342 (August 3, 2006). <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evGMco.b2evALnk.b2WPAutP.b2evSmil Continue reading