MOTION TO SUPPRESS. 1. Approximately 78 grams of marijuana seized from the co-defendants vehicle on
|
|
- August Stone
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF WAKE IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION FILE NO. 08CRSXXXXX STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA vs. SP MOTION TO SUPPRESS COMES NOW, Defendant, SP, by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat 15A-972 moves this Court to issue an order suppressing certain evidence that may be used in this case. The specific evidence sought to be suppressed is as follows: 1. Approximately 78 grams of marijuana seized from the co-defendants vehicle on May 3, 2008; 2. One AWS digital scale seized from the co-defendant s vehicle on May 3, 2008; 3. One Marijuana Roach seized from the co-defendant s vehicle on May 3, 2008; 4. Several plastic bags seized from the co-defendant s vehicle on May 3, 2008; 5. Any statements made by the Defendant to any officer or other official in the course of this investigation; 6. Any other physical evidence relating to this case which was seized on May 3, 2008 which is in the possession, custody and/or control of the State. The grounds for this motion are that all of the aforementioned evidence was illegally seized without a warrant by virtue of an unlawful seizure, detention and interrogation of the Defendant in violation of the Defendant s Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rights of the United States Constitution made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. BACKGROUND FACTS On May 3, 2008 at approximately 8:40pm, Officer Hurst of the Raleigh Police Department responded to a 911 dispatch at xxxx xxxxx Road. The call was the homeowner and allegedly stated that her son R was at the residence when he was prohibited from being there
2 by court order. As Officer Hurst arrived, he saw TM s, hereinafter co-defendant, vehicle arrive and park in front of the residence to which he was dispatched. Both the Defendant and co-defendant exited the vehicle. Officer Hurst approached both individuals and began a consensual encounter. Both the Defendant and co-defendant truthfully told Officer Hurst that they did not live at the residence and that they were there to pick up their friend R. As the young men waited by the vehicle, Officer Hurst approached the residence and was unable to get a response after ringing the doorbell and knocking on the door. Officer Hurst radioed for back up when he was unable to get a response. When Officer Hurst approached the Defendants and while waiting for back up, both the Defendant and the co-defendant asked Officer Hurst if they were free to leave. Officer Hurst told the young men that they could not leave and requested their identification to make sure that neither was R. Both Defendant s cooperated with the Officer and gave Officer Hurst R s full name. Officer Hurst checked the co-defendant s for active warrants. The warrant check came back negative. When the warrant check came back negative, Officer Hurst suddenly remembered that there was a BOLO for an early 90's white sedan occupied by three, not two, black males for an alleged robbery that had occurred at an unknown time earlier in the day about three miles from the current location. The Defendants were denied permission to leave while Officer Hurst continued to try to locate R. The Defendants were ordered to remain until we figured out what was going on. Several other officers arrived at the scene. Additionally, the co-defendant called his mother who arrived at the scene. At one point, the co-defendant s cell phone rang. The co-defendant s mother answered the telephone and informed the officers that it was R. The officers were informed that R had left the house and that he would not return. Officer Hurst then continued to question both co-defendant s as to the whereabouts of R. Subsequently, Officer Hurst informed the Defendants of the vehicle matching the description of a BOLO to which the Defendants responded that they had nothing to do with a
3 robbery. Additionally, the co-defendant s mother informed Officer Hurst that the co-defendant had been at home all day and could not have been involved in the robbery. Officer Hurst requested that the co-defendant s mother leave the scene so he could speak with the co-defendant s. Officer Hurst again began to question the co-defendants as to the whereabouts of R. Officer Hurst repeatedly asked permission to search the co-defendant s vehicle. The request was repeatedly denied. At some point after the request to search had been repeatedly denied, Officer Zlockie noticed what he believed to be a marijuana roach in the ashtray of the vehicle. Officer Hurst inquired as to whether there were anymore drugs in the vehicle to which the Defendant replied that there was a little bit of marijuana under the passenger seat. The car was then searched without the consent of the co-defendant and the contraband listed above was discovered. The Defendant than admitted to having possession of the marijuana in the vehicle for personal use. From beginning to end the investigatory detention of the Defendant was in excess of two hours. LEGAL ANALYSIS I. INVESTIGATORY STOP An investigatory stop must be justified by a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that the individual stopped is involved in criminal activity. See In the Matter of J.L.B.M., Juvenile, 176 N.C. App. 613, 620, 627 S.E. 2d 239, 243 (2006) citing State v. Watkins, 337 N.C. 437, 441, 446 S.E.2d 67, 70 (1994) see also State v. Edwards, 164 N.C.App. 130, 135, 595 S.E.2d 213, 217 (2004); State v. Blackstock, 165 N.C.App. 50, 56, 598 S.E.2d 412, 416 (2004). The court is to consider the totality of the circumstances in making the determination as to whether the officer possessed a reasonable and articulable suspicion as to justify an investigatory stop. See State v. Robinson, 658 S.E.2d 501, 505 (2008) citing State v. Watkins, 337 N.C. 437, , 446 S.E.2d 67, 70 (1994); see also U.S. v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 104 L.Ed.2d 1, 10(1989). Officer Hurst s initial encounter with the co-defendants was a consensual encounter.
4 Accordingly, the co-defendants were not seized upon the initial encounter and were not seized. See Milien at 144 N.C.App.335, 339, 548 S.E.2d 768, 771(holding that only arrests and investigatory stops constitute seizures giving rise to Fourth Amendment Protections) citing Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386, 394, 109 S.Ct. 1865, , 104 L.Ed.2d 443, 454 (1989). This matter turned into an investigatory stop subsequent to Officer Hurst ringing the doorbell at the residence and then returning to the co-defendants who were standing by the vehicle. Both co-defendants requested if they were permitted to leave. At the moment that Officer Hurst informed the co-defendants that they were not permitted to leave, this matter became an investigatory stop and the continued detention was subject to the protections of the Fourth Amendment. The Defense does not contend that Officer Hurst did not have reasonable suspicion to conduct the investigatory stop. The facts clearly show that Officer Hurst was responding to a 911 telephone call regarding domestic violence. The perpetrator was not at the residence and the co-defendants admitted truthfully that they were there to pick up the Defendant. Being that the co-defendants were unknown to Officer Hurst, he was well within the law to check both of the co-defendant s identification in order to determine if either of the co-defendants was the suspect in the domestic violence investigation. After Officer Hurst checked the co-defendant s identification and ran a warrant check, Officer Hurst had dispelled his suspicion that either of the co-defendant s were involved in criminal activity. As such, the co-defendants should have been free to leave. See Falana. II. LENGTH OF DETENTION The scope of an investigatory detention must be carefully tailored to its underlying justification. See State v. Myles, 654 S.E. 2d 752, 754 Once the original purpose of the stop has been addressed, there must be grounds which provide a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the individual is involved in criminal activity in order to justify further delay. See Id. citing State v. Falana, 129 N.C.App. 813, 816, 501 S.E. 2d 358, 360(1998). An investigative detention must be temporary and last no longer than necessary to confirm or dispel the officer s
5 suspicion that the individual detained is involved in criminal activity. See Milien at 144 N.C.App.335, 340, 548 S.E.2d 768, 772 citing Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500, 103 S.Ct. 1319, , 75 L.Ed.2d 229, 238 (1983). After approximately 10 to 15 minutes of contact with the co-defendants it had been confirmed that neither of the co-defendant s were the suspect regarding the 911 dispatch. At that point Officer Hurst asserts that he had reasonable suspicion to further detain the co-defendants due to an earlier BOLO. It is important for the Court to note that both the undersigned and the ADA assigned to this case have not been able to find a printed copy of the BOLO. The BOLO cited to by Officer Hurst lacks any meaningful description of the suspects other than ethnicity. The BOLO described by Officer Hurst was an early 90's white sedan occupied by three black males for a robbery that had occurred earlier about three miles from the location we were at[sic]. Notwithstanding the fact that there were only two individuals in the car, the description of the BOLO given by Officer Hurst is so vague as to give Officer Hurst no reasonable suspicion to detain the co-defendants any further. No matter how the BOLO is worded the essence of the description given by Officer Hurst comes down to black guys in a white car. Nevertheless, Officer Hurst did not immediately act to confirm or dispel his suspicion that the co-defendant s were involved in the robbery. Instead, Officer Hurst continued to question the co-defendant s regarding the whereabouts of R and R s mother. I attempted to call R s mother on the number in the call but it went to her work voic . I asked TM s and SP if they knew R s mothers cell number. Neither knew the number. During the ensuing 1 ½ to 2 hours, co-defendant MT s mother arrived at the scene and is a witness to the length of the investigatory detention. Additionally, five (5) additional officers arrived to conduct a search of the house to which the 911 dispatch came from. With full knowledge that the co-defendant s were not involved in the domestic situation, Officer Hurst
6 instructed the co-defendants to wait at the scene until we figured out what was going on. Additionally, Officer Hurst waited for approximately 1 ½ to 2 hours to act on the alleged BOLO. III. DE FACTO ARREST REQUIRES PROBABLE CAUSE When the duration of the detention exceeds the permissible scope the detention constitutes a de facto arrest which must be supported by probable cause. See Milien at 144 N.C.App.335, 340, 548 S.E.2d 768, 772 citing United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 685, 105 S.Ct. 1568, 1575, 84 L.Ed.2d 605, 615(1985); State v. Russell, 84 N.C. App. 383, 389, 352 S.E.2d 922, 926, disc. review denied, 319 N.C. 677, 356 S.E.2d 784, cert. denied, 484 U.S. 946, 108 S.Ct. 336, 98 L.Ed.2d 363(1987). In assessing the effect of the length of the detention, the Court is to take into account whether the police diligently pursued their investigation. See Sharpe, 470 U.S. at 685 quoting U.S. v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 709 (1983). Assuming arguendo that the alleged BOLO 1) exists and 2) supports reasonable suspicion to further detain the co-defendant s, the continued detention became a de facto arrest when Officer Hurst failed to diligently pursue his investigation of the co-defendants. Rather, with several police officers present, Officer Hurst continued to question the co-defendants regarding R and conducted a full sweep of the suspect residence. The undersigned has been unable to find any case law, State or Federal, which has found a 2 hour investigatory detention to be reasonable under similar circumstances. The analysis of the de facto arrest is best served by example. In United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983), the United States Supreme Court held that a 90 minute detention of a suitcase was an unreasonable length of time. Similarly, in United States v. Cagle, 849 F2d 924, 927 the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a 90 minute detention of a passengers luggage was unreasonable as the police did not employ the most diligent and least intrusive means possible in the investigation. In United States v. Codd, 956 F.2d 1109, 1111 the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that a 2 ½ hour detention of a suspect in order to search her purse without probable cause was an unreasonable detention. In State v. Guzman-Pascual, 184 N.C.App. 189, 645 S.E.2d 900 (2007), the North Carolina Court of Appeals found that a two hour detention of a
7 suspect was an arrest. However, the arrest in Guzman-Pascual, was supported by probable cause. As Officer Hurst and the other officers at the scene failed to diligently investigate the co-defendants for a period of approximately 2 hours, the detention constitutes a de facto arrest on less than probable cause. As such, all evidence gained during the illegal detention should be suppressed. IV. MIRANDA As the co-defendants were in custody due to a de facto arrest, prior to any questioning, Defendant SP was required to be informed of his rights under the holding in Miranda v. Arizona. In addition to express interrogation, the rules against self-incrimination also apply to any words or actions on the part of the police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. See Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 100 (1980) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As previously stated, the co-defendants were detained in excess of two hours by the time that Officer Hurst had completed his questioning regarding the whereabouts of R as well as a sweep of the suspect residence. Only after in excess of two hours had passed did Officer Hurst request permission to search co-defendant TM s vehicle. After permission was denied, Officer Hurst continued to request permission to search co-defendant TM s vehicle. All subsequent requests were denied. During the continued detention of the co-defendant s Officer Zlockie allegedly noticed a marijuana roach in the ashtray of co-defendant TM s vehicle. Officer Hurst then interrogated the co-defendants as to whether there were any other drugs or weapons in the vehicle. Defendant, SP informed Officer Hurst that there was additional marijuana under the passenger seat. Due to the fact that Defendant SP was in custody and being expressly interrogated by Officer Hurst without being advised of his rights under the holding in Miranda, all statements made by Defendant SP should be suppressed.
8 Certificate of Service I certify that a copy hereof has been furnished to the State's Attorney by hand delivery on. Respectfully submitted, Michael A. Dye, P.A.
MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND ACCOMPANYING MEMORANDUM OF LAW. COMES NOW, Defendant, TJB, by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF WAKE IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION FILE NO. XXCRSXXXXX STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA vs. TJB MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND ACCOMPANYING MEMORANDUM OF LAW
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO: 10-XXXXXXXX v. CM DIVISION: HON. XXXX XXXXX MOTION TO SUPPRESS COMES NOW, Defendant
More informationv. COURT USE ONLY Defendant: ***** Case Number: **** Attorneys for Defendant:
County Court, City and County of Denver, Colorado Lindsey Flanigan Courthouse, Room 160 520 W. Colfax Ave. Denver, CO 80204 Plaintiff: The People of the State of Colorado v. COURT USE ONLY Defendant: *****
More informationIN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
NORTH CAROLINA WAKE COUNTY IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ) ) VS. ) REQUEST FOR ) VOLUNTARY DISCOVERY ) (ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR ) DISCOVERY) Defendant.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 10-00320-14-CR-W-DGK ) RAFAEL ZAMORA, ) ) Defendant. ) GOVERNMENT
More informationSTATE V. GANT: DEPARTING FROM THE BRIGHT-LINE BELTON RULE IN AUTOMOBILE SEARCHES INCIDENT TO ARREST
STATE V. GANT: DEPARTING FROM THE BRIGHT-LINE BELTON RULE IN AUTOMOBILE SEARCHES INCIDENT TO ARREST Holly Wells INTRODUCTION In State v. Gant, 1 the Arizona Supreme Court, in a 3 to 2 decision, held that
More informationMICHAEL EUGENE JONES OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE LEROY F. MILLETTE, JR. April 15, 2010 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
PRESENT: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, 1 Millette, JJ., and Lacy, S.J. Koontz, Lemons, Goodwyn, and MICHAEL EUGENE JONES OPINION BY v. Record No. 091539 JUSTICE LEROY F. MILLETTE, JR. April 15, 2010 COMMONWEALTH
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs July 21, 2010
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs July 21, 2010 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. KEVIN M. FRIERSON Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2007-C-2329
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2003 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-19-2003 USA v. Mercedes Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket 00-2563 Follow this and additional
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellee No. 772 EDA 2012
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. KHYNESHA E. GRANT Appellee No. 772 EDA 2012 Appeal from the Order
More informationCommonwealth Of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: May 5, 2006; 2:00 P.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth Of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2005-CA-000790-MR WARD CARLOS HIGHTOWER APPELLANT APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE PAMELA
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. v. : T.C. NO. 08 CR CURTIS, : (Criminal appeal from Common Pleas Court) Appellant.
[Cite as State v. Curtis, 193 Ohio App.3d 121, 2011-Ohio-1277.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO The STATE OF OHIO, : Appellee, : C.A. CASE NO. 23895 v. : T.C. NO. 08 CR 1518 CURTIS,
More informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2015 TIMOTHY LEE MERCER STATE OF MARYLAND
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2068 September Term, 2015 TIMOTHY LEE MERCER v. STATE OF MARYLAND Eyler, Deborah S., Kehoe, Shaw Geter, JJ. Opinion by Shaw Geter, J. Filed: September
More informationTraffic Stop Scenario Jeff Welty October 2016
Traffic Stop Scenario Jeff Welty October 2016 Officer Ollie Ogletree is on patrol one Saturday night at about 10:00 p.m. He s driving along a major commercial road in a lower middle class section of town
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 115,799 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 115,799 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. NICHOLAS GRANT MACDONALD, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Johnson District
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 115,210 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, DEZAREE JO MCQUEARY, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 115,210 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. DEZAREE JO MCQUEARY, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Saline District
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 7 November 2017
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA17-108 Filed: 7 November 2017 Guilford County, No. 14 CRS 67272 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BYRON JEROME PARKER Appeal by defendant from order entered 18
More informationSupreme Court of Louisiana
Supreme Court of Louisiana FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 3 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 21st day of January, 2009, are as follows: PER CURIAM: 2008-KK-1002
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,398 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, TYLER REGELMAN, Appellee.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 116,398 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, v. TYLER REGELMAN, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Geary District
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 544 U. S. (2005) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationNo. 103,472 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, BILLY WHITE, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
No. 103,472 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. BILLY WHITE, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. The State has the burden of proving that a search and seizure was
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as State v. Valenti, 2013-Ohio-5564.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 26807 Appellee v. GINA R. VALENTI Appellant APPEAL
More information... O P I N I O N ...
[Cite as State v. McComb, 2008-Ohio-426.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY STATE OF OHIO : : Appellate Case No. 21964 Plaintiff-Appellee : : Trial Court Case
More informationGENERAL POLICE ORDER CLEVELAND DIVISION OF POLICE
GENERAL POLICE ORDER CLEVELAND DIVISION OF POLICE ORIGINAL EFFECTIVE DATE : ASSOCIATED MANUAL: CHIEF OF POLICE: REVISED DATE: 08/20/2018 RELATED ORDERS: NO. PAGES: 1of 9 NUMBER: Search and Seizure This
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: E. THOMAS KEMP STEVE CARTER Richmond, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana GEORGE P. SHERMAN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
More informationIN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2016 ANTONIO JOHNSON STATE OF MARYLAND
Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 117107009 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1654 September Term, 2016 ANTONIO JOHNSON v. STATE OF MARYLAND Eyler, Deborah S., Wright,
More informationUnited States v. $109,179 In United States Currency 228 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2000)
United States v. $109,179 In United States Currency 228 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2000) United States brought forfeiture action against currency seized during course of narcotics investigation, and claimant,
More informationmales allegedly involved in narcotics activities on the timeliness of Defendant s motion.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH : : vs. : No. CR-563-2017 : RASHEEN STURGIS, : Defendant : OPINION AND ORDER Defendant is charged with possession with intent
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) No. 06-CR-159-HDC ) MARCO DEWON MURPHY, ) SHEQUITA REVELS, ) Defendants. ) MOTION
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO v. : T.C. NO CR 3357
[Cite as State v. Jolly, 2008-Ohio-6547.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 22811 v. : T.C. NO. 2007 CR 3357 DERION JOLLY : (Criminal
More information1 of 5 9/16/2014 2:02 PM
1 of 5 9/16/2014 2:02 PM Suspects Who Refuse to Identify Themselves By Jeff Bray, Senior Legal Advisor, Plano, Texas, Police Department police officer does not need probable cause to stop a car or a pedestrian
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 118,223 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. In the Matter of A.A-M. MEMORANDUM OPINION
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 118,223 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS In the Matter of A.A-M. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Wyandotte District Court; DELIA M. YORK, judge.
More information1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: June 06, NO. 33,666 5 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: June 06, 2016 4 NO. 33,666 5 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v. 8 WESLEY DAVIS, 9 Defendant-Appellant.
More informationSTATE OF OHIO SCOTT WHITE
[Cite as State v. White, 2009-Ohio-5557.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92229 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. SCOTT WHITE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationIN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff, : Case No. 12 CR 110
IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO THE STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff, : Case No. 12 CR 110 v. : Judge Berens CHARLES W. FURNISS, : ENTRY Overruling in Part and Sustaining in Part Defendant
More informationPetition for Writ of Certiorari Granted October 30, 1992 COUNSEL
1 STATE V. WERNER, 1992-NMCA-101, 115 N.M. 131, 848 P.2d 1 (Ct. App. 1992) STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. Timothy Lee WERNER, Defendant-Appellee No. 13431 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
More informationINVESTIGATIVE ENCOUNTERS AT A GLANCE COMMAND LEVEL TRAINING CONFERENCE SEPTEMBER 2015 COURTESY PROFESSIONALISM RESPECT
INVESTIGATIVE ENCOUNTERS AT A GLANCE COURTESY COMMAND LEVEL TRAINING CONFERENCE SEPTEMBER 2015 PROFESSIONALISM RESPECT NOTES INVESTIGATIVE ENCOUNTERS U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION IN TERRY v. OHIO (1968)
More informationNo A IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS Plaintiff-Appellee. vs. MICHAEL D. PLUMMER Defendant-Appellant
No. 13-109679-A IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS Plaintiff-Appellee Fit t-n -l MAY 1-;~~'4. CAROL G. GREEN CLERK Or: APPELLATE COLJ~n; vs. MICHAEL D. PLUMMER Defendant-Appellant
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 17 December v. New Hanover County No. 12 CRS FREDERICK L. WEAVER
NO. COA13-578 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 17 December 2013 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. New Hanover County No. 12 CRS 53818 FREDERICK L. WEAVER Appeal by the State from order entered 27 March
More informationPeople v. Ross, No st District, October 17, 2000
People v. Ross, No. 1-99-3339 1st District, October 17, 2000 SECOND DIVISION THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EARL ROSS, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the Circuit Court of
More informationDISSENTING OPINION BY NAKAMURA, C.J.
DISSENTING OPINION BY NAKAMURA, C.J. I respectfully dissent. Although the standard of review for whether police conduct constitutes interrogation is not entirely clear, it appears that Hawai i applies
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 112,302 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 112,302 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. GUILLERMO FUERO-MENDOZA, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Lyon
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : : vs. : No. 966-CR-2014 : CATHRYN J. PORAMBO, : : Defendant : Cynthia Dydra-Hatton, Esquire
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-1-2010 USA v. David Briggs Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 09-2421 Follow this and additional
More informationMINNESOTA V. DICKERSON United States Supreme Court 508 U.S. 366, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993)
MINNESOTA V. DICKERSON United States Supreme Court 508 U.S. 366, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993) In this case, the Supreme Court considers whether the seizure of contraband detected through a police
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 119,013 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 119,013 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. SHANNON MARIE BOGART, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Shawnee
More informationCommonwealth Of Kentucky. Court of Appeals
RENDERED: MAY 21, 2004; 2:00 p.m. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth Of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2003-CA-000584-MR EDWARD LAMONT HARDY APPELLANT APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE SHEILA R.
More informationORDER AND JUDGMENT * Defendant-Appellant Benjamin Salas, Jr. was charged in a two-count
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS September 21, 2007 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court v. Plaintiff - Appellee,
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed September 10, 2014. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D13-1796 Lower Tribunal No. 12-3833 The State of
More informationENTRY ORDER 2007 VT 43 SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO MARCH TERM, 2007
State v. Chicoine (2005-529) 2007 VT 43 [Filed 24-May-2007] ENTRY ORDER 2007 VT 43 SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2005-529 MARCH TERM, 2007 State of Vermont } APPEALED FROM: } } v. } District Court of Vermont,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO
[Cite as State v. Mobley, 2014-Ohio-4410.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 26044 v. : T.C. NO. 13CR2518/1 13CR2518/2 CAMERON MOBLEY
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner/Appellant, CASE NO. vs. DCA CASE NO. 4D PETITIONER S BRIEF ON DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA COREY STUDEMIRE, Petitioner/Appellant, CASE NO. vs. DCA CASE NO. 4D05-4019 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent/Appellee. / PETITIONER S BRIEF ON DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION CAREY
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) NO. 67147-2-I Respondent/ ) Cross-Appellant, ) DIVISION ONE ) v. ) ) JUAN LUIS LOZANO, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) Appellant/ ) FILED:
More informationIn the Court of Appeals of Georgia
THIRD DIVISION ANDREWS, P. J., DILLARD and MCMILLIAN, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: Filing Date: April 1, 2010 Docket No. 28,583 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, v. ERIC K., Plaintiff-Appellee, Child-Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE June 29, 2005 Session
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE June 29, 2005 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JUSTIN PAUL BRUCE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Anderson County No. A3CR0301 James B. Scott,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 21, 2010 v No. 292908 Wayne Circuit Court CORTASEZE EDWARD BALLARD, LC No. 09-002536-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellant : JOURNAL ENTRY. vs.
[Cite as State v. Ely, 2006-Ohio-459.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 86091 STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellant JOURNAL ENTRY vs. AND KEITH ELY, OPINION Defendant-Appellee
More informationESSAY QUESTION NO. 4. Answer this question in booklet No. 4
ESSAY QUESTION NO. 4 Answer this question in booklet No. 4 Police Officer Smith was on patrol early in the morning near the coastal bicycle trail when he received a report from the police dispatcher. The
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 20 September 2016
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA16-173 Filed: 20 September 2016 Watauga County, No. 14 CRS 50923 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ANTWON LEERANDALL ELDRIDGE Appeal by defendant from judgment
More informationNo. 102,369 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, KENNETH S. GOFF, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
No. 102,369 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. KENNETH S. GOFF, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. If an officer detects the odor of raw marijuana emanating from
More information2009 VT 75. No On Appeal from v. District Court of Vermont, Unit No. 2, Bennington Circuit. Michael M. Christmas March Term, 2009
State v. Christmas (2008-303) 2009 VT 75 [Filed 24-Jul-2009] NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
More informationNo. 1D On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. James M. Colaw, Judge. October 16, 2018
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA No. 1D17-2808 CHRISTOPHER ANTIAWN JONES, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. James M. Colaw, Judge.
More informationCircuit Court for Baltimore City Case No UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2018
Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 118059004 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 968 September Term, 2018 PATRICK HOWELL v. STATE OF MARYLAND Friedman, Beachley, Moylan, Charles
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,451 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 117,451 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, v. NORMAN VINSON CLARDY, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Shawnee District
More informationILLINOIS V. WARDLOW 528 U.S. 119 (2000)
Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice Volume 8 Issue 1 Article 9 4-1-2002 ILLINOIS V. WARDLOW 528 U.S. 119 (2000) Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/crsj
More informationTYPES OF SEIZURES: stops and arrests; property seizures
TYPES OF SEIZURES: stops and arrests; property seizures slide #1 THOMAS K. CLANCY Director National Center for Justice and Rule of Law The University of Mississippi School of Law University, MS 38677 Phone:
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA NO KA-1704 VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL DONAVON L. KING FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * *
STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS DONAVON L. KING NO. 2011-KA-1704 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA APPEAL FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 503-140, SECTION F Honorable Robin D.
More informationv. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN November 1, 2002 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
PRESENT: All the Justices PHILLIP JEROME MURPHY v. Record No. 020771 OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN November 1, 2002 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA In this appeal,
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as State v. Figueroa, 2010-Ohio-189.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) STATE OF OHIO C. A. No. 09CA009612 Appellant v. MARILYN FIGUEROA Appellee
More informationSTATE OF WISCONSIN : CIRCUIT COURT : BROWN COUNTY. vs. Case No. 12 CF BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
STATE OF WISCONSIN : CIRCUIT COURT : BROWN COUNTY STATE OF WISCONSIN, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 12 CF 000000 JOHN DOE, Defendant. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE THE DEFENDANT, John Doe,
More informationIN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) STATE V. THUNDER
IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) STATE V. THUNDER NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : CR-1373-2015 v. : : BARRY JOHN RINEHIMER, : CRIMINAL DIVISION Defendant : OPINION AND ORDER On September 25,
More informationKnock and Talks : Obtaining Consent to Search
Knock and Talks : Obtaining Consent to Search Prepared by: Toni Smith, Assistant City Attorney Revised January 2010 Knock and Talk Procedures Knock and talk : A tactic used by law enforcement which consists
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2010
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2010 Opinion filed June 30, 2010. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D09-1346 Lower Tribunal No.
More information2018 PA Super 183 : : : : : : : : :
2018 PA Super 183 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. TAREEK ALQUAN HEMINGWAY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 684 WDA 2017 Appeal from the Order March 31, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas
More information2016 PA Super 91. OPINION BY OTT, J.: Filed: April 28, Anthony Stilo appeals from the July 23, 2014, judgment of sentence
2016 PA Super 91 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ANTHONY STILO Appellant No. 2838 EDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 23, 2014 In the Court of Common
More informationSubject FIELD INTERVIEWS, INVESTIGATIVE STOPS/DETENTIONS, WEAPONS PAT-DOWNS & SEARCHES. DRAFT 7 April By Order of the Police Commissioner
Subject STOPS/DETENTIONS, WEAPONS PAT-DOWNS & Date Published Page DRAFT 7 April 2018 1 of 18 POLICY By Order of the Police Commissioner It is the policy of the Baltimore Police Department (BPD) to conduct
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. CASE NO.: SC STATE OF FLORIDA, DCA case no.: 5D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA LORENZO GOLPHIN, Petitioner, v. CASE NO.: SC03-554 STATE OF FLORIDA, DCA case no.: 5D02-1848 Respondent. / ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
J-A28009-15 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ANGEL FELICIANO Appellant No. 752 EDA 2014 Appeal
More informationOPINION BY CIRILLO, P.J.E.: Filed: January 19, Derrick Guillespie appeals from his judgment of sentence entered in the
2000 PA Super 16 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF Appellee : PENNSYLVANIA : VS : : DERRICK GUILLESPIE, : Appellant : No. 392 MDA 99 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of October
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED December 28, 2010 v No. 290094 Ingham Circuit Court KENNETH DEWAYNE ROBERTS, LC No. 08-000838-FH Defendant-Appellee.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED January 19, 2010 APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION March 9, 2010 9:10 a.m. v No. 289330 Eaton Circuit Court LINDA
More informationv No Berrien Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED February 27, 2018 v No. 339239 Berrien Circuit Court JAMES HENNERY HANNIGAN, LC
More informationPresent: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, and Mims, JJ., and Russell and Lacy, S.JJ.
Present: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, and Mims, JJ., and Russell and Lacy, S.JJ. D ANGELO BROOKS v. Record No. 091047 OPINION BY JUSTICE WILLIAM C. MIMS June 9, 2011 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
EVAN BARK, FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT December 5, 2012 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DETECTIVE
More informationSTATE OF WISCONSIN: CIRCUIT COURT: RACINE COUNTY: Defendant. DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
STATE OF WISCONSIN: CIRCUIT COURT: RACINE COUNTY: STATE OF WISCONSIN, v. DAMIEN BELL, Plaintiff, Case No. 2007CF000744 Defendant. DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE NOW COMES the above-named defendant,
More information**************************************** I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY.
STATE OF IDAHO ) County of KOOTENAI ) ss FILED AT O clock M CLERK, DISTRICT COURT Deputy IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI STATE
More informationTHE LAW PROFESSOR CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ESSAY SERIES ESSAY QUESTION
THE LAW PROFESSOR CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ESSAY SERIES ESSAY QUESTION #1 Officer Jones was notified by Oscar, a police informant, that Jeremy had robbed the jewelry store two hours earlier. Jeremy was reported
More informationNH DIVISION OF LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT AND LICENSING ADMINISTRATION & OPERATIONS MANUAL
NH DIVISION OF LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT AND LICENSING ADMINISTRATION & OPERATIONS MANUAL CHAPTER: O-411 SUBJECT: Searches Without A Warrant REVISED: February 9, 2010 Review EFFECTIVE DATE: August 14, 2009 DISTRIBUTION:
More information[J ] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT
[J-16-2015] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, v. TIFFANY LEE BARNES, Appellant Appellee : No. 111 MAP 2014 : : Appeal from the Order of the Superior : Court
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI JAMIE LEE ANDERSON APPELLANT VS. NO.2008-KA-0601-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE APPELLEE DOES NOT REQUEST ORAL ARGUMENT JIM
More informationALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
REL 2/01/2008 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationPage U.S. 129 S.Ct L. Ed. 2d 694. v. LEMON MONTREA JOHNSON. No Supreme Court of United States. Argued December 9, 2008.
Page 1 555 U.S. 129 S.Ct. 781 172 L. Ed. 2d 694 ARIZONA, PETITIONER v. LEMON MONTREA JOHNSON No. 07-1122. Supreme Court of United States. Argued December 9, 2008. Decided January 26, 2009. In Terry v.
More informationKAUPP v. TEXAS. on petition for writ of certiorari to the court of appeals of texas, fourteenth district
626 OCTOBER TERM, 2002 Syllabus KAUPP v. TEXAS on petition for writ of certiorari to the court of appeals of texas, fourteenth district No. 02 5636. Decided May 5, 2003 After petitioner Kaupp, then 17,
More informationThe STATE of Ohio, Appellee, RAMOS, Appellant. [Cite as State v. Ramos, 155 Ohio App.3d 396, 2003-Ohio-6535.] Court of Appeals of Ohio,
[Cite as State v. Ramos, 155 Ohio App.3d 396, 2003-Ohio-6535.] The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. RAMOS, Appellant. [Cite as State v. Ramos, 155 Ohio App.3d 396, 2003-Ohio-6535.] Court of Appeals of Ohio,
More informationSTATE V. GUTIERREZ, 2004-NMCA-081, 136 N.M. 18, 94 P.3d 18 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEMETRIO DANIEL GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
1 STATE V. GUTIERREZ, 2004-NMCA-081, 136 N.M. 18, 94 P.3d 18 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEMETRIO DANIEL GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant. Docket No. 23,047 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 555 U. S. (2009) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationJOSELYN S. KELLY Lancaster, Ohio ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS 239 West Main Street, Suite 101 Lancaster, Ohio 43130
[Cite as State v. Hawkins, 2012-Ohio-3137.] COURT OF APPEALS FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellant -vs- SEAN HAWKINS Defendant-Appellee JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Houser, 2010-Ohio-4246.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93179 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JOSEPH HOUSER DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More information