An officer need not have personal knowledge to have cause to obtain a search warrant. Here, a neighbor previously in an argument with the defendant was the source of information that was detailed and corroborated. Also the warrant was not stale. “Within the past year” is not stale when dealing with firearms. United States v. Waddell, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65637 (N.D. Okla. September 13, 2006).<\/p>\n
A co-occupant with apparent authority to consent to a search need not be present to consent to the search. United States v. Antwann, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65512 (W.D. Mich. September 14, 2006).<\/p>\n
Video of defendant during stop and his granting of consent showed that it was valid. “The video recording of Defendant’s consent demonstrated that no coercive police procedures were utilized, Defendant exhibited a desire to cooperate with the officers, and Defendant was not under duress when he consented to the search. Because Defendant’s consent was given freely and voluntarily, the search of the vehicle was legal, and there was no constitutional infirmity in the incriminating statements subsequently made by Defendant. Defendant’s Motion to Suppress is therefore DENIED.” United States v. Cheneau, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65468 (S.D. Tex. August 31, 2006).<\/p>\n
Controlled buy by a wired informant is probable cause. Defendant was arrested with the informant and placed in the back of a police car, and the informant was told to not converse with the defendant, but he did, and the defendant impliedly admitted being a heroin dealer for twelve years. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the back of a police car. State v. Simmons, 2006 Ohio 4751, 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 4681 (8th Dist. September 14, 2006).<\/p>\n
Officers visited a motel for a “business check” and smelled burning marijuana. Walking through the building, they found burning incense in a hallway and heard an aerosol spray in a room. So, they did a knock and talk of the room, and, when defendant opened the door, taking care to conceal the contents, officers could see a gun in his waistband, and that plain view justified their entry. State v. Holloway, 2006 Ohio 4797, 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 4692 (2d Dist. September 15, 2006)* (Note:<\/em> This started as an Anders<\/em> brief, but the court determined under its Penson v. Ohio<\/em> review that this issue needed to be briefed.)<\/p>\n Issue of validity of entry into defendant’s home, a unit of a housing project, was not presented to the trial court, so it was waived. Consent to search defendant’s purse was a matter of credibility, and record supports the trial court’s finding. State v. Gammons, 2006 Ohio 4766, 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 4671 (8th Dist. September 14, 2006).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evGMco.b2evALnk.b2WPAutP.b2evSmil Continue reading