\u201cOfficer Ammons therefore did not violate Defendant’s rights by requesting his name and date of birth.\u201d Defendant didn\u2019t have his DL on him, saying it was in his \u201ccrib.\u201d The officer asked for it, but wouldn\u2019t let defendant go in the house to get it alone for officer safety. Thus, he followed defendant into the house. That was an illegal entry. The consent argument fails, too, because there was no express or implied consent to enter. The court notes similar cases. Marijuana was smelled and a warrant obtained. United States v. Harvey, 901 F. Supp. 2d 681 (N.D. W.Va. 2012), adopted 902 F. Supp. 2d 681 (N.D. W.Va. 2012):<\/p>\n
In the case at bar, Defendant was not under arrest and was not believed to have committed any crime. No one was injured or needed assistance in the residence. There was no arrestable “underlying offense” in this case as regards Defendant. The driver of the car was driving without a license and the officers smelled burnt marijuana in the car. The officers found a bong in the trunk. Defendant was a passenger in the car. There was no evidence Defendant had committed any crime. He was not connected to the bong or the marijuana smell. The police did not find any marijuana in the car and did not test the bong for residue or fingerprints. Whether Defendant provided a false name or Officer Ammons heard the name incorrectly, Defendant’s offer that his ID was in his “crib” was an insufficient reason for a warrantless entry into his home.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the undersigned concludes on the totality of the facts of this case that the United States has failed to carry its burden of proving that exigent circumstances existed or that an emergency existed which justified the warrantless police entry into Defendant’s home on the date in question.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading