Case Law Update: 2011-2014 Cumulative Edition

Holding: Where Officers responded to a report of a couple yelling in their apartment and woman opened door, this did not allow Officers to conduct a warrantless entry into the apartment (where they found drugs), even though they claimed to be acting under “emergency aid” exception to warrant requirement in a domestic violence situation.
State v. Robinson, 2011 WL 1434607 (Wash. 2011):

Holding: Arizona v. Gant is retroactive.
State v. Brereton, 92 Crim. L. Rep. 542 (Wis. 2/6/13):

Holding: 4^th Amendment requires police to obtain a warrant to place GPS device on Defendant’s car.
State v. Juarez, 2011 WL 2989853 (Wyo. 2011):

Holding: Statute prohibiting turning left or right without signaling did not apply to merging into highway traffic from on-ramp because it would be obvious to other motorists that driver had to enter highway; therefore, Officer did not have reason to stop Defendant for failing to signal, and evidence found in subsequent search of car was suppressed.


Dardy v. State, 2012 WL 6554233 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012):

Holding: Swabbing Defendant’s hands to detect dried blood was a search within meaning of 4^th Amendment.
State v. Blakley, 2010 WL 4705153 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010):
Holding: Where Officer approached car in Defendant’s driveway in an area not normally used by visitors, this violated Defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy.
People v. Walker, 2012 WL 4948216 (Cal. App. 2012):
Holding: Even though Officer claimed he stopped African-American passenger of a train on basis that he matched a description of a sexual assault suspect, where the description of the suspect was not similar to the passenger’s appearance, there was no reasonable suspicion for the stop.
People v. Fulton, 2012 WL 1795126 (Cal. App. 2012):

Holding: Seizing evidence from a person’s genitalia without a warrant as a search incident to arrest requires exigent circumstances, such as officer safety or imminent destruction of evidence; 4^th Amendment was violated for warrantless seizure of Defendant’s pubic hairs and swabs from his penis where Defendant was accused of rape.
People v. Carmona, 2011 WL 2090036 (Cal. App. 2011):

Holding: Statute requiring a turn signal “in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement” and statute requiring any signal be given “during the last 100 feet traveled before turning” had to be read together, meaning that a driver must signal for a turn 100 feet ahead of time only if another vehicle might be affected. Thus, Officer lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop where driver failed to signal but this could not have affected another vehicle.
People v. Xinos, 2011 WL 386864 (Cal. App. 2011):

Holding: Driver had reasonable expectation of privacy in vehicle’s sensing and diagnostic module (SDM); police lacked probable cause for a warrantless download of raw SDM data from the vehicle after it was involved in a fatal crash.
Magallan v. Superior Court, 2011 WL 658651 (Cal. App. 2011):

Holding: Judge had power to grant discovery to prepare for motion to suppress hearing, and not just to prepare for trial.
People v. Buza, 89 Crim. L. Rep. 715 (Cal. App. 8/4/11):

Holding: DNA testing of all felony arrestees violates 4^th Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches.
Robey v. Superior Court, 2011 WL 5027491 (Cal. App. 2011):

Holding: Even assuming officer’s warrantless seizure of a package which smelled like marijuana had been legal, the officer was required to hold the package until he had obtained a warrant.
People v. Reyes, 2011 WL 2437829 (Cal. App. 2011):

Holding: Even though Defendant’s vehicle had only one Florida license plate, where this did not violate either Florida or California law, this did not provide reasonable suspicion to stop car.
State v. Ojeda, 2013 WL 1810631 (Fla. App. 2013):

Holding: Officer’s act of going on to private property to knock on door to arrest Defendant for an old drug charge without a warrant violated 4^th Amendment, even if the property did not have a fence or “no trespassing” sign.
Teamer v. State, 2012 WL 6634135 (Fla. App. 2012):

Holding: Even though the color of vehicle did not match the vehicle’s registration, this did not provide reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle, since there was no law prohibiting changing a vehicle’s color or requiring an owner to notify the State of a change in color, and this alone was not enough to provide suspicion that Defendant was driving with stolen tags.
Hernandez v. State, 92 Crim. L. Rep. 89 (Fla. App. 10/5/12):

Holding: Where police knew an occupant lacked authority to consent to search of locked bedroom in a house, they could not enter the bedroom under the guise of a “protective sweep” to make sure no one was in a position to ambush them.
Wiggs v. State, 2011 WL 3300139 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011):

Holding: Where drug dog had accuracy rate of only 29%, this was insufficient to provide probable cause to believe that drugs would be found in car after dog alerted.
Hentz v. State, 2011 WL 2200628 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011):

Holding: Even though Defendant knew his co-Defendant was at police station when phone call took place, Defendant had reasonable expectation of privacy in cell phone call for purposes of wiretap statute where Defendant was at home.
Shaw v. State, 2013 WL 5992887 (Ga. App. 2013):

Holding: Impoundment of Defendant’s car was not necessary incident to his arrest, so the subsequent inventory search was invalid and inevitable discovery was inapplicable; there was no evidence that the car was parked in a manner which presented a hazard to traffic or that he was given an opportunity to make alternative arrangements for car.
Walker v. State, 2013 WL 3481859 (Ga. App. 2013):

Holding: Officer escalated his consensual encounter with Defendant into an investigatory stop, requiring reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, when Officer ordered Defendant to remove his hands from his pockets; even though Defendant was walking off school property after midnight, this did not provide reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to stop Defendant.


State v. Barnett, 2012 WL 373352 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012):

Holding: Boilerplate language that drug evidence was likely to be destroyed and that drug suspects often possess weapons did not constitute particular facts or circumstances justifying the no-knock provision of a search warrant.
People v. Gaytan, 2013 WL 2253654 (Ill. App. 2013):

Holding: Even though a trailer hitch was partially obscuring vehicle’s license plate, this did not provide cause for a traffic stop since the hitch did not violate the non-obstruction statute.
People v. Petty, 2012 WL 6194196 (Ill. App. 2012):

Holding: Even though Officer saw two people transfer an object hand-to-hand from one car to another, this did not provide reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to stop car.
State v. Rinehart, 90 Crim. L. Rep. 359 (Ill. App. 11/30/11):

Holding: Even though an anonymous person flagged down an officer and said someone had a gun, this did not provide reasonable suspicion to stop a person who matched the description where the person who flagged down the officer had not given their name.
People v. Nesbitt, 88 Crim. L. Rep. 254, 2010 WL 4542903 (Ill. App. 11/8/10):

Holding: Illinois Constitution protects privacy in bank records.
Killebrew v. State, 2012 WL 5077159 (Ind. App. 2012):

Holding: Even though Defendant drove through an intersection with his turn signal on, this was not a traffic violation and did not provide reasonable suspicion to stop the car.
Corwin v. State, 2011 WL 6282365 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011):

Holding: Officer did not have probable cause to arrest defendant based on pill bottle found in defendant’s pocket during a Terry frisk, and so the officer was not justified in opening the bottle as a search incident to arrest.
Gunn v. State, 2011 WL 5034299 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011):

Holding: Where officer misinterpreted traffic ordinance and mistakenly believed defendant had violated it, there was no reasonable suspicion to stop defendant’s vehicle.
Willoughby v. Com., 2014 WL 92253 (Ky. Ct. App. 2014):

Holding: Record was insufficient to determine whether State’s automated vehicle information system (AVIS), which signaled to a police officer to verify Defendant’s proof of insurance, was sufficiently reliable to support reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop for lack of insurance; there was no evidence presented about the reliability of the system.
Turner v. Com., 2011 WL 3516289 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011):

Holding: Where Defendant-driver was in police custody and not in car, Officer could not search passenger compartment of car.
State v. Weber, 2013 WL 3239493 (La. App. 2013):

Holding: Officer did not have probable cause for to believe unconscious Defendant who was brought to hospital after car accident was the driver of the vehicle to support a blood draw, where the vehicle had other occupants and no one ever asked who the driver was, and even though another officer knew the car belonged to Defendant, that officer never told the Officer who did the blood draw.
State v. Bone, 2012 WL 3968515 (La. App. 2012):

Holding: Even though Defendant was not the owner or subscriber of a cell phone, where he was the exclusive user, he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the phone and Gov’t could not search text messages without showing probable cause.
State v. Mulder, 2011 WL 5066392 (La. App. 2011):

Holding: Where there were no factors indicating a safety concern, officers lacked reasonable suspicion to frisk defendant suspected of nonresidency in housing development in which he was walking.
Com. v. Damon, 2012 WL 2866129 (Mass. App. 2012):

Holding: Even though Officer smelled burnt marijuana coming from vehicle, this alone did not provide probable cause to order occupants out of car and search car; since small amounts of marijuana had been decriminalized, the odor of marijuana alone did not justify this without additional suspicion of criminal activity.
Com. v. Miller, 2011 WL 693010 (Mass. Ct. App. 2011):

Holding: Even though Defendant put a black strip across his car’s license plate that covered up the words “Spirit of America,” Officer’s stop of car for this was invalid because this was not illegal; Officer erroneously believed this was illegal.
State v. Barajas, 2012 WL 3023330 (Minn. App. 2012):

Holding: A defendant has the same reasonable expectation of privacy in the concealed digital contents of a cell phone as he does in the contents of a physical container; thus, even though Defendant’s phone was seized from an apartment in which he was illegally residing, police were required to obtain a warrant to search the contents of the phone for photos.
State v. Nelson, 2011 WL 6004242 (Neb. Ct. App. 2011):

Holding: Even though defendant’s name was not on the rental agreement for a rental car, but where he had permission from his uncle, whose name was on the agreement, to drive the vehicle, defendant had standing to challenge his detention and the search of the vehicle on Fourth Amendment grounds.
State v. Almanzar, 2012 WL 3101686 (N.M. App. 2012):

Holding: Even though statute authorized police to make warrantless arrests at scene of a domestic disturbance, the statute did not authorize arresting a suspect away from the scene without a warrant.
State v. Almeida, 2011 WL 2207589 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011):
Holding: Officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop driver-Defendant after he made a left turn but not into the left-most lane, because this did not violate any statute regarding left turns, even though Officer thought it did.
State v. Boyse, 2011 WL 5966492 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011), cert. granted, (Nov. 4, 2011):

Holding: State constitutional requirement that warrant be supported by written showing of probable cause did not permit warrant based on unrecorded telephone conversation between detective and magistrate.


State v. Combs, 2011 WL 6130774 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011):

Holding: Showup procedure employed by deputy lacked indicia of reliability necessary to overcome suggestiveness of the procedure, where the deputy was shown a mug shot of the defendant and told that it was the driver the deputy had issued a citation to two months earlier.
State v. Portillo, 2011 WL 3687637 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011):

Holding: Where (1) Defendant was passenger in vehicle stopped for speeding; (2) driver was told he was free to leave; and (3) Officer continued to question passenger about drugs in vehicle, Officer’s questions unlawfully extended the traffic stop for Defendant-passenger without reasonable suspicion under New Mexico Constitution.
State v. Crane, 2011 WL 2554315 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011):

Holding: Under New Mexico Constitution, Defendant has reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage placed in motel waste container.
State v. Crane, 89 Crim. L. Rep. 128 (N.M. Ct. App. 4/7/11):

Holding: Under New Mexico Constitution, police violated Defendant’s privacy interest by searching garbage bags in a dumpster at a hotel; by placing his garbage in a sealed bag and putting it in the dumpster used by hotel guests, Defendant demonstrated a reasonable expectation of privacy that the bags would not be searchd by police without a warrant.
State v. Kaltner, 2011 WL 2623555 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. 2011):

Holding: Even though police entry into home in response to a noise complaint was justified, they were not justified in doing a full-blown search of the house to carry out noise abatement or community caretaking.
In re Darryl C., 2012 WL 2383852 (N.Y. App. 2012):

Holding: Even though there had been recent gang violence in area, Officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk Juvenile who was standing alone on a street in the daytime and who was holding an object that he put in his pocket when he saw the Officer.

People v. Smith, 2012 WL 895362 (N.Y. App. Div. 4^th Dep’t 2012):

Holding: It was objectively unreasonable for officers to apply taser to compel suspect to open his mouth for DNA swab.
People v. Pomales, 2012 WL 539798 (N.Y. Sup 2012):

Holding: A non-incarcerated parolee on release from his indeterminate prison sentence of two to six years qualified as “any person in custody” for the purposes of the Drug Law Reform Act (DLRA), which permitted defendants with indeterminate sentences to apply for resentencing to a lower determinate sentence.
People v. Hemmings, 2012 WL 127422 (N.Y. Sup 2012):

Holding: Defendant had reasonable expectation of privacy in closed booth in adult video store, despite the fact that the booth’s door was not locked.



State v. Smith, 729 S.E.2d 120 (N.C. App. 2012):

Holding: Drug dog’s alert at driver’s door of car did not create probable cause to search a recent passenger in the car.
State v.Mbacke, 2011 WL 13814 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011):

Holding: Even though Defendant was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon, it was not reasonable to believe his vehicle contained evidence of the offense and so, after Defendant had been arrested and placed in patrol car, the vehicle could not be searched without a warrant.
People v. Tashbaeva, 2012 WL 283587 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 2012):

Holding: Police officers’ previous plain view observation of bottles containing alcohol in the vehicle of a defendant arrested for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated did not provide a predicate for a warrantless seizure of the bottles on the following day.
People v. Omowale, 2011 WL 1584859 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011):

Holding: Even though Defendant had previously been arrested for possession of a weapon in a car, this did not create reasonable suspicion to believe Defendant was armed at a later time when he was in a doubly-parked car.
State v. Brown, 2013 WL 6410442 (Ohio App. 2013):

Holding: Officer’s stop of Defendant outside of Officer’s jurisdiction, in violation of state law providing that state highway patrol and county sheriffs have exclusive authority to make arrests on interstate highways, violated unreasonable search and seizure provision of Ohio Constitution.
State v. Hoffman, 2013 WL 1190654 (Ohio App. 2013):

Holding: Warrant issued by deputy clerk without probable cause determination was invalid.


State v. Haas, 2012 WL 1926399 (Ohio App. 2012):

Holding: Defendant’s act of stopping on a road in residential or business area did not violate statute prohibiting parking on a public highway, and thus, Officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant on this basis even though Officer misunderstood the traffic statute.
State v. Gardner, 2011 WL 5328637 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011):

Holding: Where defendant’s arrest warrant was discovered only as a result of an unlawful stop, the exclusionary rule applies.
State v. Stewart, 2011 WL 2434146 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011):

Holding: Even though police had a description of African-American man and woman involved in a shooting, police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop African-American Defendant and his girlfriend in African-American neighborhood, where suspects were described as 5’10” to 6” in late 20’s or early 30’s, and Defendant was 5’8” and 20 years old; one officer conceded they were stopped because of their race.
State v. Bass, 93 Crim. L. Rep. 238 (Okla. Crim. App. 5/1/13):

Holding: Even though Driver-Defendant was driving a rental car that was rented by another person, where the other person had given Driver permission to use car, Driver had reasonable expectation of privacy in vehicle.
State v, Groom, 2012 WL 1022909 (Or. Ct. App. 2012):

Holding: A police officer’s search of a defendant’s car was not within the automobile exception to the warrant requirement because the car was not moving when the officer first encountered it “in connection with a crime,” as required by State v. Kurokawa-Lasciak.
State v. Zamaro-Martinez, 2011 WL 2698218 (Or. App. 2011):

Holding: Defendant was “seized” under Oregon Const. where Defendant produced an ID card and then Officer asked for more forms of identification; even though stop may have begun as “casual encounter,” it escalated into a seizure because a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave.
Com. v. Dunnavant, 2013 WL 696500 (Pa. Super. 2013):

Holding : Where Gov’t confidential informant wore a hidden video camera into Defendant’s house, this was a per se unreasonable search of the house without a warrant, even if the conduct was inadvertent.
State v. Granville, 94 Crim. L. Rep. 667, 2014 WL 714730 (Tex. App. 2/26/14):

Holding: Even though police had seized Defendant’s cell phone when he was arrested and Defendant was now in jail, police needed a warrant to search the phone; the court rejected the argument that because jailed inmates have a diminished expectation of privacy, there is no expectation of privacy in a seized cell phone that is stored at the jail, and rejected the argument that a search incident to arrest exception should apply, since this exception was designed to promote officer safety and prevent destruction of evidence, neither of which applied here.
Thomas v. State, 2013 WL 6878911 (Tex. App. 2013):

Holding: Where Officer stopped Defendant for driving on a shoulder, Officer improperly prolonged traffic stop after giving a citation where Officer lacked reasonable suspicion that Defendant was engaging in criminal activity; even though Defendant’s trip did not seem logical, had a one-way rental car, had only a small backpack as luggage and refused consent to search, the Defendant’s driver’s license and criminal history were okay.
Arguellez v. State, 2013 WL 5220957 (Tex. App. 2013):

Holding: Even though Defendant took photos of women and children at a public swimming pool, this did not provide reasonable suspicion that Defendant was engaged in a crime to stop Defendant for investigation, because such conduct is not unusual, suspicious or criminal; further, because there was no indication that a crime was afoot, Defendant’s leaving the scene of the photos was not flight or evasion from police.
State v. Betts, 93 Crim. L. Rep. 155 (Tex. App. 4/17/13):

Holding: Even though Officer observed malnourished dogs in fenced backyard of house, 4^th Amendment did not allow Officer to enter yard without a search warrant.
Turrubiate v. State, 93 Crim. L. Rep. 150, 2013 WL 1428172 (Tex. App. 4/10/13):

Holding: Even though Officer smelled marijuana when house’s occupant opened door, this did not create exigent circumstances to enter house without a warrant in the absence of any evidence that destruction of evidence was imminent.
Abney v. State, 2013 WL 1222711 (Tex. App. 2013):

Holding: Even though Defendant-Driver was driving in the left lane (passing lane) of a road without passing anyone, this did not create reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation to justify Officer’s stop of Defendant.
State v. Elrod, 2013 WL 811828 (Tex. App. 2013):

Holding: Even though Defendant-Babysitter invited emergency personnel into house where child had stopped breathing, Defendant did not waive her expectation of privacy and had standing to challenge the legality of the search of house; neither the emergency aid doctrine nor plain view doctrine address the issue of standing.
Miller v. State, 92 Crim. L. Rep. 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 11/21/12):

Holding: Even though police heard yelling and throwing of objects at residence and suspected domestic violence, where woman opened door and said everything was okay, they violated the 4^th Amendment when they refused to leave and searched around since they did not have reasonable suspicion to do this, even though the woman was intoxicated and looked distraught; concern about the possibility of domestic violence was unreasonable absent any physical injuries, sounds of a second voice, or evidence that another person was in the residence.
Orosco v. State, 2012 WL 2924473 (Tex. App. 2012):