SI was reasonably contemporary with arrest. “[T]he validity of such a search does not depend on what a court may later decide was the probability in a particular arrest situation that weapons or evidence would in fact be found upon the person of the suspect.” State v. Oyenusi, 387 N.J. Super. 146, 903 A.2d 467 (August 3, 2006).<\/p>\n
Consent found from “I don’t care” to first request and “go ahead” to second. State v. Davis, 2006 N.C. App. LEXIS 1668 (August 1, 2006).*<\/p>\n
Consent to search in a capital case was found from defendant’s statement: “I don’t care, you do what you have to do. I want you to get the person who did this to my Robert.” State v. Roberts, 110 Ohio St. 3d 71, 2006 Ohio 3665, 2006 Ohio LEXIS 2174 (August 2, 2006).*<\/p>\n
Defendant’s testimony that officer said he could smell raw marijuana was pertinent to the trial court’s finding that the officer did, in fact, smell raw marijuana, and that was PC for arrest. State v. Sellards, 2006 Ohio 3924, 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 3895 (5th Dist. August 1, 2006).*<\/p>\n
Defendant trespassing in a vacant house had no standing to contest a search of it. Officer came by and saw the door open and went in and saw what appeared to be him a place where drugs were repackaged. Told supervisors who then directed that the house be watched. When it was occupied, officers did a knock and talk. Gouldsby v. State, 202 S.W.3d 329 (Tex. App. \u2013 Texarkana August 3, 2006). <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evGMco.b2evALnk.b2WPAutP.b2evSmil Continue reading