Officers doing a knock-and-talk came to defendant’s house and knocked, but did not state their purpose. When defendant opened the door and saw the police, he exclaimed “Oh, shit!” and tried to shut the door, but an officer blocked shutting the door with his foot. They then forced their way in. The defendant’s conduct was a denial of 149 P.3d 961 (November 9, 2006, released for publication January 16, 2007), cert. granted (No. 30,131) December 14, 2006.<\/p>\n
During a suppression hearing, a Franks<\/em> issue arose, and the court invited the parties to brief it. The state did not. The court purged the false information and concluded the remainder did not show probable cause and suppressed. The judgment was affirmed on appeal. The state was invited to brief the Franks<\/em> issue and failed to do so. State v. Ralston, 2007 Ohio 177, 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 175 (4th Dist. January 11, 2007).<\/p>\n In a criminal copyright infringement action, a search warrant for counterfeit goods was being executed when a truck with additional allegedly counterfeit goods arrived at the scene of the search. The truck was searched, too, and more was found. The defendants’ challenge of the search warrant as to the premises failed. As to the truck, the government obtained a superseding indictment alleging attempted possession after the defendants denied ownership or control of what arrived in the truck. The question now was relevance at trial under F.R.E. 401 on the attempt question. United States v. Ohri, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3381 (E.D. Va. January 16, 2007).<\/p>\n In a civil case against 14 defendants, the defendants’ motion to enlarge the deposition to 16 hours over two days under F.R.C.P. 30(d)(2) was granted where plaintiff would not stipulate, and the number of defendants required that much time to determine their potential liability. Saunders v. Knight, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3387 (E.D. Cal. January 4, 2007).*<\/p>\n Habeas claim that state court applied wrong standard of review in state PCR proceeding was not cognizable on habeas. Peek v. Hooks, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94793 (M.D. Ala. December 5, 2006).*<\/p>\n Trial court’s assessment of credibility on question of consent required denial of motion to suppress be denied. State v. Purser, 2007 Ohio 192, 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 166 (2d Dist. January 19, 2007).* <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading