Defendant argues that his suppression motion should have been granted, claiming that the police did not have probable cause for the arrest, and that a pair of sneakers seized as evidence were not in plain sight. We find these contentions to be without merit.
Defendant also argues that there should have been some sanction when two testifying detectives indicated that they had taken notes, later transcribed, that were subsequently lost or destroyed. The claim is unpreserved...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
