Defendant\u2019s patdown led to finding drugs before the actual arrest. The fact it preceded the arrest is not error here because he was going to be arrested. Also, the officer making the stop did it pretextually, but validly, because they were hiding the fact of an ongoing wiretap from him and others who might be aware of the stop and search. United States v. Welch, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5938 (D. Me. January 15, 2013).*<\/p>\n
A 22 month old child was taken to the ER with a report of injuries caused in the home, likely at the hands of the mother\u2019s boyfriend. There was a newborn in the house, too. Police went to the house to check on the child, and, while people were inside, nobody would come to the door, and then defendant tried to go out the window. Officers also discovered defendant was under investigation for another battery. Based on all this, an entry was justified, and defendant was found to be a FIPF. United States v. Duhon<\/a>, 503 Fed. Appx. 874 (11th Cir. 2013).*<\/p>\n The stop for hitting the fogline was valid despite defendant\u2019s arguments. His consent thereafter was otherwise voluntary. State v. Magallanes<\/a>, 284 Neb. 871, 824 N.W.2d 696 (2012).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading