In a sex abuse case, a week before trial, the state sought a search warrant for photographs of defendant’s penis to show whether he had been circumcised. The officers went before a different judge who did not know about the pending criminal case, and the defense was not given notice in violation of the state discovery rules. The trial court quashed the photographs as evidence, leaving the state to prove it otherwise. The appellate court affirmed, finding bad motives in the police. People v. Turner, 367 Ill. App. 3d 490, 305 Ill. Dec. 229, 854 N.E.2d 1139 (2d Dist. August 22, 2006, released for publication October 13, 2006):<\/p>\n
We further question Investigator Pleasant’s intentions. He averred that he had numerous years of experience specializing in child sexual abuse cases, yet, he failed to ask the prosecutor whether it was permissible to take the complaint for warrant to a judge other than the presiding judge. He also claimed under oath that he informed Judge Ceckowski that this case was pending before Judge Rossetti, but Judge Rossetti’s account of her conversation with Judge Ceckowski contradicts his claim.<\/p>\n
We agree with defendant that the photo session was inherently intrusive, degrading, and humiliating. Pleasant admitted during the hearing that, at one point in the session, defendant told him that he had been embarrassed enough and pulled up his pants, only to be threatened with force if he did not allow more photos to be taken. Pleasant also admitted that, upon being threatened, defendant asked to talk to his attorney. However, Pleasant did not stop the session and call defense counsel. Instead, he told defendant that counsel “was being made aware” of the photo session, thereby insinuating that counsel knew what was happening and approved of it, which was not the case.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Reasonable suspicion existed for stop of man on bicycle who stopped in street when car drove up at 1 a.m. It was an apparent drug deal going down. As they approached bicycle, defendant abandoned drugs. Huffman v. State, 937 So. 2d 202 (Fla. App. 1st Dist. August 24, 2006).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evGMco.b2evALnk.b2WPAutP.b2evSmil Continue reading