by the police officer. The observation of the illegal cocaine would have given the officers probable cause to believe that a crime was being committed, and therefore, the legal authority to search the defendant and charge him with the fruits of that search here, the crack cocaine. If, however, the officers could not and did not see the alleged rocks of crack cocaine i rch. 2 . See, e.g., Terry, 392 U.S. at 20, 88 S.Ct. at 1879 (repeating the well-established rule that "the police must, whenever practicable, obtain advance judicial approval of searches and seizures through the warrant procedure, [and] that in most instances failure to comply with the warrant requirement can only be excused by exigent circumstances” (citations omitted)); United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 6th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 994, 100 S.Ct. 528, 62
holding that identical error did not prejudice defendant because by giving the instruction the judge merely gave the jury the opportunity to overturn his own ruling holding that identical error did not prejudice defendant because it merely gave the defendant the benefit of the jurys consideration of admissibility or a second bite at the apple attribution omitted holding that jurys verdict for the defendant in a breach of contract action did not establish the absence of breach because the jury was instructed that it could find for the defendant if it concluded that the defendant had not breached the contract or if the defendant proved an affirmative defense holding defendant failed to preserve for appeal the question of admissibility of evidence that was the subject of the motion in limine where defendant failed to object to evidence when offered at trial holding the trial courts subsequently corrected instruction that the jury must find the defendant personally committed the offenses in order to convict the defendant on those charges did not prejudice the defendant