<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Jennifer M. Cooper &#187; &#187; Criminal law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.jennifermcooper.com/category/criminal-law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.jennifermcooper.com</link>
	<description>Innovative Legal Education In Academic Success &#38; Legal Writing</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 18:36:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.42</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Washington state says 60 day supply of medical marijuana is 24 ounces of usable marijuana and 15 plants</title>
		<link>http://www.jennifermcooper.com/2008/10/07/washington-state-says-60-day-supply-of-medical-marijuana-is-24-ounces-of-usable-marijuana-and-15-plants/</link>
		<comments>http://www.jennifermcooper.com/2008/10/07/washington-state-says-60-day-supply-of-medical-marijuana-is-24-ounces-of-usable-marijuana-and-15-plants/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:36:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jennifer M. Cooper]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drug crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Initiative 692]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medical Marijuana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[possession of marijuana]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.jennifermcooper.com/?p=25</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According to The Seattle Times, as of November 2, 2008, a 60 day supply of medical marijuana will be considered 24 ounces of usable marijuana plus 15 plants. In 1998, Washington voters approved Initiative 692 legalizing a 60 day supply of marijuana for medicinal purposes. According to RCW 69.51A.010, qualifying patients for medical marijuana use [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jennifermcooper.com/2008/10/07/washington-state-says-60-day-supply-of-medical-marijuana-is-24-ounces-of-usable-marijuana-and-15-plants/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Felony level drug, property, and ID theft charges to be diverted to district and municipal court</title>
		<link>http://www.jennifermcooper.com/2008/09/26/felony-drug-property-id-theft-charges-diverted-to-district-and-municipal-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.jennifermcooper.com/2008/09/26/felony-drug-property-id-theft-charges-diverted-to-district-and-municipal-court/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2008 19:27:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jennifer M. Cooper]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drug crimes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ID Theft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[King County Prosecuting Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[possession of cocaine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[possession of heroin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[possession of methamphetamine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[property crimes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.jennifermcooper.com/?p=24</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[King County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Satterberg announced on September 25, 2008 that some felony level drug, property, and ID theft charges will be diverted from Superior Court to district and municipal courts due to budget cuts. Defendants will be charged with misdemeanors, with sentences up to 1 year in jail and fines up to $5000 [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jennifermcooper.com/2008/09/26/felony-drug-property-id-theft-charges-diverted-to-district-and-municipal-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pat-down frisks must be supported by objectively reasonable facts that suspect is armed and presently dangerous</title>
		<link>http://www.jennifermcooper.com/2008/09/15/pat-down-frisks-must-be-supported-by-objectively-reasonable-facts-that-suspect-armed-presently-dangerous/</link>
		<comments>http://www.jennifermcooper.com/2008/09/15/pat-down-frisks-must-be-supported-by-objectively-reasonable-facts-that-suspect-armed-presently-dangerous/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:11:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jennifer M. Cooper]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[frisking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pat-down frisk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search & seizure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search incident to arrest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State v. Bee Xiong]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.jennifermcooper.com/?p=23</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[State v. Bee Xiong, Washington Supreme Court, filed September 11, 2008. Police went to Kheng Xiong&#8217;s residence with a warrant for his arrest and a black &#38; white picture of Kheng Xiong to assist in identifying him. Officers observed a minivan pull up to the residence and believed the passenger was Kheng Xiong, although he [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jennifermcooper.com/2008/09/15/pat-down-frisks-must-be-supported-by-objectively-reasonable-facts-that-suspect-armed-presently-dangerous/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Exiting and locking your car doesn&#8217;t automatically prevent search incident to arrest</title>
		<link>http://www.jennifermcooper.com/2008/09/02/exiting-and-locking-your-car-doesnt-automatically-prevent-search-incident-to-arrest/</link>
		<comments>http://www.jennifermcooper.com/2008/09/02/exiting-and-locking-your-car-doesnt-automatically-prevent-search-incident-to-arrest/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:31:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jennifer M. Cooper]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drug case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[locked vehicle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search and seizure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search incident to arrest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search of vehicle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State v. Adams]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.jennifermcooper.com/?p=22</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[State v. Adams, Court of Appeals Division I, filed September 2, 2008. Police observed a man sitting in his parked car outside a casino. The registered owner of the vehicle had an outstanding arrest warrant for a revoked driver&#8217;s license. The driver matched the registered owner&#8217;s description, so the police officer turned around to contact [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jennifermcooper.com/2008/09/02/exiting-and-locking-your-car-doesnt-automatically-prevent-search-incident-to-arrest/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Urinalysis is warrantess search; Mandatory urine testing as condition of pretrial release is inappropriate as there is no evidence that it increases likelihood of appearance for court</title>
		<link>http://www.jennifermcooper.com/2008/09/02/urinalysis-is-warrantess-search-inappropriate-condition-of-pretrial-release/</link>
		<comments>http://www.jennifermcooper.com/2008/09/02/urinalysis-is-warrantess-search-inappropriate-condition-of-pretrial-release/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 21:56:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jennifer M. Cooper]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conditions of release]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drug charge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search & seizure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State v. Rose]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UA's]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.jennifermcooper.com/?p=21</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[State v. Rose, Court of Appeals Division II, filed August 26, 2008. Ms. Rose was arraigned on drug charges relating to a marijuana grow operation. Ms. Rose&#8217;s only criminal history was a conviction for driving with a suspended license from 1989. She had no history of failing to appear for court and she had a [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jennifermcooper.com/2008/09/02/urinalysis-is-warrantess-search-inappropriate-condition-of-pretrial-release/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is our exclusionary rule in jeopardy?</title>
		<link>http://www.jennifermcooper.com/2008/07/18/is-our-exclusionary-rule-in-jeopardy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.jennifermcooper.com/2008/07/18/is-our-exclusionary-rule-in-jeopardy/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 22:22:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jennifer M. Cooper]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exclusionary rule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mapp v. Ohio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search & seizure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.jennifermcooper.com/?p=19</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a series titled &#8220;American Exception&#8221; The New York Times examines the American exclusionary rule in &#8220;Should Suspects Go Free When Police Blunder?&#8221; The exclusionary rule was originally outlined by the United States Supreme Court in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) and mandates suppression of evidence in certain instances when police violate a [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jennifermcooper.com/2008/07/18/is-our-exclusionary-rule-in-jeopardy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Smell of marijuana in general area is insufficient for probable cause to arrest</title>
		<link>http://www.jennifermcooper.com/2008/07/17/smell-of-marijuana-in-general-area-is-insuffiicent-for-probable-cause-to-arrest/</link>
		<comments>http://www.jennifermcooper.com/2008/07/17/smell-of-marijuana-in-general-area-is-insuffiicent-for-probable-cause-to-arrest/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:48:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jennifer M. Cooper]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[odor of marijuana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[possession of marijuana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[probable cause to arrest odor of marijuana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search & seizure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State v. Grande]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ybarra v. Illinois]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.jennifermcooper.com/?p=18</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[State v. Grande, Washington Supreme Court, filed July 17, 2008. Mr. Grande was a passenger in a vehicle stopped for having very dark tinted windows. When the officer pulled the vehicle over, he detected the moderate smell of marijuana coming from the car. He arrested both the driver and Mr. Grande, the passenger. He handcuffed [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jennifermcooper.com/2008/07/17/smell-of-marijuana-in-general-area-is-insuffiicent-for-probable-cause-to-arrest/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Vehicle crossing over a lane once by two tire widths not a traffic violation justifying seizure by law enforcement</title>
		<link>http://www.jennifermcooper.com/2008/07/17/vehicle-crossing-over-a-lane-once-by-two-tire-widths-not-a-traffic-violation-justifying-seizure-by-law-enforcement/</link>
		<comments>http://www.jennifermcooper.com/2008/07/17/vehicle-crossing-over-a-lane-once-by-two-tire-widths-not-a-traffic-violation-justifying-seizure-by-law-enforcement/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:49:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jennifer M. Cooper]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DUI lane travel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lane travel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RCW 46.61.140]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State v. Tonelli-Prado]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.jennifermcooper.com/?p=17</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[State v. Tonelli-Prado, Washington Court of Appeals, Division I, filed July 7, 2008. Mr. Tonelli Prado was stopped as he was exiting I-5 at James Street in Seattle, WA. The police officer had observed Mr. Tonelli Prado&#8217;s car cross an 8 inch white line dividing the exit lane from the adjacent lane by approximately 2 [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jennifermcooper.com/2008/07/17/vehicle-crossing-over-a-lane-once-by-two-tire-widths-not-a-traffic-violation-justifying-seizure-by-law-enforcement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Warrantless search of dorm hallway unlawful absent consent; residents have reasonable expectation of privacy in floor hallway</title>
		<link>http://www.jennifermcooper.com/2008/07/14/warrantless-search-of-dorm-hallway-unlawful-absent-consent-residents-have-reasonable-expectation-of-privacy-in-floor-hallway/</link>
		<comments>http://www.jennifermcooper.com/2008/07/14/warrantless-search-of-dorm-hallway-unlawful-absent-consent-residents-have-reasonable-expectation-of-privacy-in-floor-hallway/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:37:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jennifer M. Cooper]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expectation of privacy in dorm hallway]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fourth Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search & seizure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search of dorm hallway]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State v. Houvener]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.jennifermcooper.com/?p=16</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[State v. Houvener, Washington Court of Appeals, Division III, filed June 26, 2008. Around 5:45 AM on February 11, 2006, campus police responded to a reported burglary on the third floor of a dormitory complex on the campus of Washington State University. The officer learned that the resident&#8217;s laptop computer and acoustic guitar had been [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jennifermcooper.com/2008/07/14/warrantless-search-of-dorm-hallway-unlawful-absent-consent-residents-have-reasonable-expectation-of-privacy-in-floor-hallway/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Seizure of witness unlawful without exigent circumstances</title>
		<link>http://www.jennifermcooper.com/2008/07/14/seizure-of-witness-unlawful-without-exigent-circumstances/</link>
		<comments>http://www.jennifermcooper.com/2008/07/14/seizure-of-witness-unlawful-without-exigent-circumstances/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2008 20:12:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jennifer M. Cooper]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fourth Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State v. Dorey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unlawful seizure of witness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unreasonable requeste for information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington seizure & seizure]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.jennifermcooper.com/?p=15</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[State v. Dorey, Washington Court of Appeals, Division III, filed June 26, 2008. Police received a complaint of a disturbance involving a black man and another man in a black shirt and arrived at the location. The disturbance was alleged to have occurred 5-10 minutes before the police officer arrived. Nothing was at the intersection. [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jennifermcooper.com/2008/07/14/seizure-of-witness-unlawful-without-exigent-circumstances/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
