Even if the search warrant was executed here before 6 a.m., defendant doesn\u2019t show any prejudice by that. A cell phone is not exigency in itself, but here there was at least some risk of destruction of evidence because defendant knew he was probation prohibited from possessing anything that could access the internet. The officers also had information that he\u2019d accessed the internet though the phone. United States v. Sherman, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62099 (D. Minn. Apr. 10, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff\u2019s arrest for even a minor offense that happens in the officer\u2019s presence is reasonable. Alburg v. Jones, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 8299 (3d Cir. Apr. 7, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s arrest for a felony was with probable cause. State v. McCurty, 2023-Ohio-1158, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 1116 (2d Dist. Apr. 7, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The legality of a protective sweep of defendant\u2019s car for a weapon was a moot point. The vehicle was subject to impoundment and it was lawfully inventoried. Everything found was subject to inevitable discovery. State v. Nixon, 2023-Ohio-1160, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 1121 (2d Dist. Apr. 7, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Even if the search warrant was executed here before 6 a.m., defendant doesn\u2019t show any prejudice by that. A cell phone is not exigency in itself, but here there was at least some risk of destruction of evidence because defendant … Continue reading