Defendant was known to the police to be a methamphetamine user and dealer, and they talked to him outside his hotel, ID\u2019g themselves and police. He said he knew they were police. They asked him if they could \u201clook around\u201d his room for drugs. He consented and took them to the room, he used his key card to unlock it, and they searched. The consent was voluntary, despite his claim he was high on methamphetamine at the time, and the officers did not exceed the scope of the consent, which was to look for drugs. United States v. Barragan, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123340 (N.D. Iowa August 27, 2013), adopted 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130424 (N.D. Iowa September 12, 2013).<\/p>\n
The Fourth Amendment wasn\u2019t violated by a police officer stopping without using his lights or siren and getting out and inquiring of defendant in a parked car whether he had permission to be on a housing complex parking lot. Defendant consented to a patdown. When asked, he got out of the car. People v. Woods<\/a>, 2013 IL App (4th) 120372, 2013 Ill. App. LEXIS 578 (August 28, 2013).*<\/p>\n HGN test for suspicion of DWI was probable cause for arrest. The fact it\u2019s not admissible at trial doesn\u2019t mean the officer could not arrest on it. Commonwealth v. Weaver<\/a>, 2013 PA Super 245, 76 A.3d 562 (2013).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading