Defendant signed a general consent to search his house, and, during the course of the search, officers picked up a pager and looked through the numbers. The pager was included within the search, and the defendant never voiced objection. Guy v. State, 913 A.2d 558 (Del. November 16, 2006).<\/p>\n
Police were not required to contact the owner of a car before inventorying it after arrest of the driver. The car might be left on the parking lot indefinitely. State v. Kerr, 2006 Ohio 6058, 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 6007 (6th Dist. November 17, 2006):<\/p>\n
When considered together, these sections of the Northwood policy provide an established procedure which permitted the officers to tow the vehicle appellant was driving. Appellant was not the owner of the vehicle and was being taken into custody. Although the owner was known, the police were not required to try to locate that owner prior to the decision to tow. The vehicle was parked in a gas station and, under the circumstances of appellant’s arrest, the police had no way of knowing how long it would remain there before the owner might retrieve it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Search of student’s car in school parking lot had to be based on reasonable suspicion, and here it was. State v. R.D.S., 2006 Tenn. App. LEXIS 733 (November 17, 2006).<\/p>\n
Probable cause was a close question, but it existed, for photographs which would show a computer in defendant’s possession for evidentiary use only. Skoog v. County of Clackamas, 469 F.3d 1221 (9th Cir. November 20, 2006).<\/p>\n
Defendant’s discovery motion sought to invoke the “silver platter” doctrine of Elkins<\/em>, but that applies to suppression motions, not discovery. United States v. Hunter, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83836 (D. Conn. November 16, 2006).<\/p>\n
Officer saw defendant walking down the street, and defendant walked faster after seeing the officer. The officer pulled up to him, without lights, and said: “Excuse me.” Defendant came over to the patrol car and talked to the officer, and the officer could smell alcohol. Defendant was a minor. The stop was valid and consensual. State v. Ruehl, 2006 Ohio 6054, 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 6010 (6th Dist. November 17, 2006).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading