Defendant was arrested for sexual assault after his victim, who knew him, identified him. She was cut up in the attack. When he was arrested, police noticed a speck of blood on his ear. Taking the blood from his ear for DNA testing was by search incident. People v. Valencia, 2011 Colo. App. LEXIS 494 (March 31, 2011).*<\/p>\n
The trial judge rejected the experienced police officer\u2019s conclusion that he knows a drug deal \u201cwhen he sees it,\u201d and one hand-to-hand exchange was not enough. The appellate court was not free to conclude as a matter of law that the trial judge erred. On a search incident issue that was heard pre-Gant, the case is remanded to develop the record. People v. Byrd<\/a>, 408 Ill. App. 3d 71, 951 N.E.2d 194 (2011).*<\/p>\n Defendant failed to show anything to support his contention that his resident was searched before the search warrant arrived. An officer on standby outside could stand in the common area of a duplex because defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy there. United States v. Rodriguez-Sanchez, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33181 (E.D. Wis. March 4, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading