-
Trial court did not err in overruling motion to suppress evidence obtained as the result of a pat-down for weapons incident to a brief, investigative stop. Totality of circumstances gave rise to a reasonable, articulable suspicion that defendant was involved in criminal drug activity. These circumstances included: one anonymous report of drug sales in an apartment basement; a non-anonymous report by the manager that drugs were being sold in the basement (albeit without any indication of his basis for so concluding); a prior record of drug sales at that address; the fact that female defendant did appear to the officer to be dressed in clothing usually worn by men (the officer testified he had not seen women so dressed), which fit the description of the person selling drugs out of the...
-
Appointment of counsel in cases involving petty crimes; failure to appoint counsel affects prior proceedings, such as hearing on motion to suppress evidence; case reversed based on prosecutor’s brief on appeal confessing judgment and recommending reversal.
-
Trial court did not err in overruling motion to suppress evidence and statements. Evidence was obtained as the result of a brief investigatory stop, based upon reasonable, articulable suspicion that a drug transaction was taking place, and as the result of a weapons pat-down, which was reasonable in view of all of the circumstances, including the officer’s testimony that he had previously found weapons in the buttocks area of persons patted down. While suspect was in custody, having just been arrested, when he made statement to police, the statement was not the product of questioning, having been volunteered in response to the advisement that suspect was under arrest. Affirmed.
-
... Patterson's counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. . 738 (... erred in denying Patterson's motion to withdraw his guilty pl... criminal, and denying his motion to suppress evidence. Patterson filed a pro se supp...
-
Trial court did not err in denying motion to suppress evidence. Police officer had reasonable suspicion, justifying a brief, investigatory detention, based upon the following facts known by the officer: the character of the neighborhood as a high crime and high drug-activity area; the fact that the residence in front of which the defendant was first contacted was a known “drug house,” based on citizen complaints and prior arrests, including the arrest of the resident and a “use nuisance” order that the residence was subject to; a “no trespassing” sign posted on the residence; the defendant’s brownish, discolored fingertips (known to the officer as being consistent with usage of crack cocaine); the defendant’s inability to give the last name of the person she intended to visit at the re...
-
... Patterson's counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. . 738 (... erred in denying Patterson's motion to withdraw his guilty pl... criminal, and denying his motion to suppress evidence. Patterson filed a pro se supp...
-
... Patterson's counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. . 738 (... erred in denying Patterson's motion to withdraw his guilty pl... criminal, and denying his motion to suppress evidence. Patterson filed a pro se supp...
-
... Patterson's counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. . 738 (... erred in denying Patterson's motion to withdraw his guilty pl... criminal, and denying his motion to suppress evidence. Patterson filed a pro se supp...
-
... Patterson's counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. . 738 (... erred in denying Patterson's motion to withdraw his guilty pl... criminal, and denying his motion to suppress evidence. Patterson filed a pro se supp...
-
... Patterson's counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. . 738 (... erred in denying Patterson's motion to withdraw his guilty pl... criminal, and denying his motion to suppress evidence. Patterson filed a pro se supp...