Arrest Search ans Seizure

Articulable suspicion-Informanty

State V Poinsett

An officer received a tip from an individual considered to be a confidential, reliable informant that two men that had just left an apartment complex and were walking on the street might possess narcotics and that one possessed a handgun.  Officers knew that the apartment complex was a site for frequent police calls regarding guns and narcotics and officers saw two men matching the description. The court concludes that the officer had an adequate basis for a seizure.

Handcuffing During Detention

State V Oberg

Officers received information from three individuals that a described vehicle may contain a gin and drugs. There were two officers that stopped a vehicle matching the description., which contained four occupants. The officers removed the individuals one at a time and handcuffed them while they investigated. The court finds that the stop and the handcuffing was a reasonable procedure given the fact that the officers were out numbered and the stop was on a rural road.

Defendants SHoes-warrant needed

State V Desjarlais

When defendant was released from jail, his shoes could not be located.  Two days after the defendant was released, defendant’s shoes were located and were sent to the BCA for testing.  The court affirms a district  court order suppressing the blood evidence from the shoes because the shoes were not abandoned property and the police should have obtained a warrant to seize and test the shoes even though they were in the custody of county officials.

DWI

source code-pretrial appeal

State v Kummer

The District court ordered the state to disclose the source code of the intoxilyzer and the state files this pretrial appeal from the order.  The court finds that the appeal is premature because it is based on an anticipation that the state will not be able to comply and the court will suppress intoxilyzer test results. The state failed to demonstrate actual critical impact from the decision.

Forfeiture-Innocent Owner

Kubus V 2002 Chevorlet Pick up

The court affirms a District court ruling that the vehicle owner, the uncle of the driver, rebutted the presumption of knowledge that the vehicle would be operated unlawfully and properly the return of the vehicle to the owner as an innocent owner.

This entry was posted on Friday, November 21st, 2008 at 2:08 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.