{"id":5820,"date":"2011-12-28T08:04:33","date_gmt":"2011-07-24T09:46:07","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-07-24T09:46:07","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5820","title":{"rendered":"CA8: As long as incorporated attachment to SW was at scene of search, it didn’t matter that defendant’s copy didn’t have one"},"content":{"rendered":"

The search warrant referred to Attachment 1, and it was clear from the evidentiary hearing that Attachment 1 was present at the scene of the search for particularity purposes. The fact that the defendant\u2019s copy was missing Attachment 1 is not material. United States v. Riesselman<\/a>, 646 F.3d 1072 (8th Cir. 2011):<\/p>\n

The district court determined a clear incorporation of Attachment 1, including a full list of items subject to seizure, and the presence of Attachment 1 with the search warrant at the search scene satisfied the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement. That the copy of Attachment 1 was not provided to Riesselman after the search concluded was of no consequence because a complete copy of the search warrant was present at the time of the search, limiting the items the officers could seize. Based on the facts, we agree the search warrant was sufficiently particular for several reasons.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Defendant\u2019s stop for a traffic offense was valid. When the officer saw defendant\u2019s DL, he recognized the defendant as somebody known to carry weapons. Coupled with some of defendant\u2019s unusual activity, the officer had reason for a patdown. The vehicle was uninsured, and that was cause for impoundment on the city code. United States v. Preston, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79824 (D. Minn. June 8, 2011).*<\/p>\n

Under Payton, it was reasonable to believe that defendant would be home outside of normal working hours, so they could enter to arrest. Also, defendant was known to not be working anyway, so she could be home anytime. United States v. Blevins, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78995 (W.D. La. May 31, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5820","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5820","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5820"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5820\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5820"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5820"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5820"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}