During a protective sweep, officers saw the barrel of a shotgun sticking out from under a futon. While the officer did not see the entire gun, it was apparent there was a shotgun. When fully revealed, it was sawed off. United States v. Weymouth, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81282 (D. Me. November 6, 2006).<\/p>\n
9\/11 related investigation led to defendant being handcuffed. He was able to consent to a search because the situation was not otherwise coercive. United States v. Awan, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81289 (E.D. N.Y. November 6, 2006).*<\/p>\n
Basis of knowledge of informant was shown by his first hand knowledge. United States v. Williams, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81010 (W.D. Pa. October 23, 2006).*<\/p>\n
Smashed computer equipment left in a state park was abandoned. United States v. Kiderlen, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81405 (E.D. Mo. August 1, 2006) (also, PC was shown for search warrant for computers in home).*<\/p>\n
Finding a small quantity of marijuana in the passenger compartment permits the officer to search the trunk for more. State v. Irvin, 210 S.W.3d 360 (Mo. App. W.D. November 7, 2006).<\/p>\n
Knock and talk of non-English speaking defendant’s home was valid. Officer just took a Spanish course and read the request to the defendant who said “si” and backed away from the door. That was consent. State v. Penalosa, 2006 N.C. App. LEXIS 2223 (November 7, 2006).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading