A confined sexually violent predator’s confinement under Florida law was no different than the confinement of a jail inmate for Fourth Amendment purposes. Marsh v. Department of Children & Families, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60349 (M.D. Fla. August 25, 2006).<\/p>\n
Officer saw a group of youths standing around an illegally parked car, and, when they saw the officer, they disbursed. The officer drove around to head them off, showed his badge and said, “[H]ang on a second; Boston Police, can I talk to you?” This was not a seizure. Defendant had something clenched in his fist and was favoring one leg, which made the officer suspect he was armed. When the officer grabbed the defendant’s arm, that was a seizure, but it was without reasonable suspicion. Commonwealth v. Nestor N., 67 Mass. App. Ct. 225, 852 N.E.2d 1132 (August 28, 2006).*<\/p>\n
IAC claim against defense counsel for not filing a motion to suppress failed because inevitable discovery would have allowed the evidence in. While there apparently was a Randolph<\/em> violation from defendant revoking consent and the police asking his wife to continue, the evidence would have come in anyway. State v. Kuhn, 2006 Ohio 4416, 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 4342 (9th Dist. August 28, 2006).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evGMco.b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading