Officers conducted a protective sweep which might or might not have been a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but the inevitable discovery rule justified the search warrant from what officers smelled at the door. \u201cNone of the evidence in this case was obtained in violation of the Defendant\u2019s Fourth Amendment rights and, to the extent there was a violation, exclusion is not an appropriate remedy.\u201d United States v. Sabo, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75327 (N.D. Ind. July 11, 2011).*<\/p>\n
Officers had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant during a domestic dispute to look for a gun, and a drug dog was sent for. It was reasonable although it took 20 minutes to arrive. United States v. Smith<\/a>, 645 F.3d 998 (8th Cir. 2011).*<\/p>\n Claim that a witness\u2019s Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the trial court\u2019s order to show the file he was testifying from [which is not error anyway] cannot be raised by a party because it is not his rights at issue. Gottschalk v. Gottschalk, 311 Ga. App. 304, 715 S.E.2d 715 (2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading