\u201cWe hold that the smell of the burnt cannabis, without any corroborating factors, is not enough to establish probable cause to search the vehicle, and the court did not err in granting the motion to suppress. This finding comports with the supreme court’s holding in Hill and its treatment of the analogous situation regarding alcohol. \u2026 Thus, the supreme court’s holding in Stout is no longer applicable to post-legalization fact patterns.\u201d Medical came in 2013, and recreational in 2020. People v. Stribling, 2022 IL App (3d) 210098, 2022 Ill. App. LEXIS 406 (Sep. 19, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant was at her open door when officers told her they had a warrant for her arrest. Rather than comply, she ran into the house discarding a baggie of meth. The entry was on exigent circumstances she could try to remove drugs from herself. The failure to tell her what the arrest was for for 15 minutes was not a constitutional violation. State v. Fenter, 2022-Ohio-3279, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 3079 (3d Dist. Sep. 19, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The alleged false statements in the search warrant affidavit weren\u2019t enough to constitute Brady material or make defendant\u2019s plea involuntary. They appeared in background information and had nothing to do with the probable cause showing. State v. Artuso, 2022-Ohio-3283, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 3080 (11th Dist. Sep. 19, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The search warrant for defendant\u2019s cell phone permitted the seizure of conversations and notes with the child sex abuse victim to establish their relationship. The warrant was particular for the conversation. Commonwealth v. Moser<\/a>, 2022 PA Super 160 (Sep. 19, 2022).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201cWe hold that the smell of the burnt cannabis, without any corroborating factors, is not enough to establish probable cause to search the vehicle, and the court did not err in granting the motion to suppress. This finding comports with … Continue reading