Defendant\u2019s garage is part of his curtilage. This one was connected to the house by a door. The Dorman\/McDonald factors in this case favor a finding of exigency for defendant\u2019s detention. (The court has concern that defendant\u2019s statement given during that was involuntary, and that issue can be resolved later.) United States v. Shapiro, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129509 (D. Conn. July 23, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The consenter stepped aside to let officers in to speak to others inside. \u201c[T]he Court finds that the scope of her consent included the officers’ proceeding to the rear of the apartment to speak with Johnson and Hill in the back room.\u201d Even if she didn\u2019t consent, a protective sweep could have occurred. United States v. Johnson, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129624 (N.D. Ill. July 23, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWhen Trooper Martin said he would write the driver a warning, Trooper Martin had already obtained permission from Mr. Berruquin to search the tractor-trailer but had not yet begun his search of the tractor-trailer. Regardless, by that point,\u201d reasonable suspicion existed. United States v. Berruquin, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129665 (E.D. Ark. July 23, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s garage is part of his curtilage. This one was connected to the house by a door. The Dorman\/McDonald factors in this case favor a finding of exigency for defendant\u2019s detention. (The court has concern that defendant\u2019s statement given during … Continue reading