Suspicion, not probable cause

State V Hoilly

Police officers saw defendant standing with two men outside a building on a cold evening. The defendant showed his open hand to a person in his group and then quickly returned his hand to his pocket.  When defendant saw police, he whistled and the group quickly dispersed.  Officers immediately arrested the defendant.  The court reversed the district court ruling and finds that the arrest was unlawful and the fruits of the search must be suppressed.  Officers had a reasonable suspicion to investigate but not probable cause to arrest.

Vehicle Stop Improper

State v James Smith

An officer was looking for Rick Smith, who had a warrant for his arrest, and ran a license plate number that registered to a James Smith with the same address and Rick Smith.  The officer stopped the vehicle, leading to  a DWI arrest.  The court decides that the State V Pike decision cannot extend to justify a stop in this case.  The court states that the pike decision does not provide the basis
for an inference that a vehicle may be operated by a relative sharing the same address with the registered owner of the vehicle.

Hotel Room-No privacy Expectation

State V see

Affirming the defendants conviction for first degree controlled substance crime, the court finds that the decision of trial counsel not to challenge the search of the hotel room was not tactical decision and not the basis for ineffective assistance of counsel.  The court notes uncertainty in the law as to whether the defendant could have been impeached by any contradictory testimony at a Rasmussen hearing concerning his expectation of privacy in the room. Moreover, the court finds that the defendant filed to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy where he had left the door open and never asserted privacy when the police arrived.

Consent to Search

state v olmscheid

Defendant watched officers arrest two men outside a residence, and the officers drew their weapons and ordered them to the ground. A single officer than ordered the defendant out of her car, asked for consent to search the car and informed her on the right to revoke her consent to the search at any time. The court affirms the District court’s ruling that the defendant voluntarily consented to the search.

DWI Vehicle forfeiture-Tribal member

Morgan JR V 2000 Volkswagen

Reversing the forfeiture of a motor vehicle for a 2nd degree DWI Offense, the court finds that the State of MN lacks jurisdiction to apply the civil vehicle forfeiture law when the conduct giving rise to forfeiture occurred on an Indian reservation and the owner is an enrolled member of the tribe on that reservation.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 7th, 2008 at 3:22 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.