Defendant was arrested in his apartment, right at the bathroom door, and looking in the bathroom was permitted by the protective sweep doctrine. In there, powder from drugs was visible in plain view. United States v. Ovalle, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202969 (D. Conn. Nov. 22, 2019).<\/p>\n
There was no reasonable suspicion for the juveniles\u2019 stop. \u201cRegardless of J.C.’s status as a juvenile though, Officer Kemper’s belief that J.C. was carrying a concealed weapon was based on an inarticulate hunch. Specifically, no additional facts supported Officer Kemper’s theory. For example, Officer Kemper did not describe a bulge in J.C.’s pants …, a metallic object …, or the outline of a gun …. He also did not report, for instance, that he received a tip about a juvenile with a gun. … Each time Officer Kemper saw J.C., he was described as making the same innocuous movement.\u201d In re J.C., 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 4865 (1st Dist. Nov. 22, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant was arrested in his apartment, right at the bathroom door, and looking in the bathroom was permitted by the protective sweep doctrine. In there, powder from drugs was visible in plain view. United States v. Ovalle, 2019 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading