Author Archives: Hall

ID: The necessity of a nighttime search authorization can be inferred from the showing of PC as a whole

The request for a nighttime search can be inferred from the affidavit for the search warrant as a whole. “Reading the affidavit as a whole, it is reasonable to infer that the interests of justice were best served by the … Continue reading →

Posted in Nighttime search | Comments Off on ID: The necessity of a nighttime search authorization can be inferred from the showing of PC as a whole

MS: The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in civil tort cases for wrongful conviction

“Sedric Sutton seeks compensation under Mississippi Code Sections 11-44-1 to -15 (Rev. 2019), Compensation to Victims of Wrongful Conviction and Imprisonment, after his conviction of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute was vacated by this Court.” The … Continue reading →

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on MS: The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in civil tort cases for wrongful conviction

N.D.Ill.: Nothing about 911 man-with-a-gun call could be corroborated; backpack def set down when told to come outside was not abandoned

A 911 call about a man with a gun couldn’t be corroborated by anything at the scene. Officers got defendant outside and frisked him finding nothing. They searched his backpack, and that produced drugs. The government’s argument the backpack was … Continue reading →

Posted in Abandonment, Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on N.D.Ill.: Nothing about 911 man-with-a-gun call could be corroborated; backpack def set down when told to come outside was not abandoned

CA6 explains inevitable discovery and how it was confused here with attenuation

The district court erred by analyzing the search as attenuation when it should have been inevitable discovery, and that’s on the lawyers for not having filed adequate briefs. The court gives a thorough and helpful explanation of both and how … Continue reading →

Posted in Attenuation, Inevitable discovery | Comments Off on CA6 explains inevitable discovery and how it was confused here with attenuation

CO: Prosecutor’s closing argument that def refused consent to searching for DNA sample was reversible error

Prosecutor’s argument defendant refused to consent to taking his DNA in a sex crime prosecution violated the Fourth Amendment and was error here. People v. Buckner, 2022 COA 14, 2022 Colo. App. LEXIS 163 (Feb. 3, 2022). The bodycam video … Continue reading →

Posted in Community caretaking function, Consent, DNA | Comments Off on CO: Prosecutor’s closing argument that def refused consent to searching for DNA sample was reversible error

OK: Lawyer’s telephone call seeking arrest of officers for trespass while they were executing SW results in disciplinary action

Respondent in this disciplinary action is a criminal defense lawyer. A client’s house was subjected to a search under a warrant. Once told, he got to the scene during the search and sought a copy of it, but he was … Continue reading →

Posted in Warrant execution | Comments Off on OK: Lawyer’s telephone call seeking arrest of officers for trespass while they were executing SW results in disciplinary action

CA7: RS present for border search of thumb drives of convicted sex offender

Defendant had a prior sex offense with a minor from 1997. HSI started investigating him in 2015 for his travels to Ukraine. “Skaggs frequently traveled overseas; Skaggs was the director of the Ukrainian Angels Resource Network, according to his LinkedIn … Continue reading →

Posted in Border search, Computer and cloud searches | Comments Off on CA7: RS present for border search of thumb drives of convicted sex offender

OH4: That stop was with RS isn’t arguing that it was continued with RS, and that’s waiver

Defendant started with the argument that the stop lacked reasonable suspicion, but he did not argue that the stop was continued with reasonable suspicion until the appeal. Failure to raise it that way in the trial court was waiver. State … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Franks doctrine, Waiver | Comments Off on OH4: That stop was with RS isn’t arguing that it was continued with RS, and that’s waiver

CA6: There was PC and exigency for search of car even though district court didn’t say “automobile exception”

The smell of marijuana from defendant’s car was probable cause. The district court didn’t say “automobile exception,” but that’s what it meant. United States v. Hall, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 2983 (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2022).* Defendant’s Franks allegation fails … Continue reading →

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Automobile exception, Franks doctrine, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA6: There was PC and exigency for search of car even though district court didn’t say “automobile exception”

CA3: PC for fraud by computer permits search of def’s house for computers

Defendant was suspected of committing fraud with his computer, and that was probable cause for searching for and seizing the computer in his home. United States v. Nyamekye, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 2966 (3d Cir. Feb. 2, 2022). Assuming reasonable … Continue reading →

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Nexus, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on CA3: PC for fraud by computer permits search of def’s house for computers

Reason: A SWAT Team Wrongfully Raided Her Home. Now Cops Say Footage From the Raid Is Private Since No One Was Killed.

Reason: A SWAT Team Wrongfully Raided Her Home. Now Cops Say Footage From the Raid Is Private Since No One Was Killed, by Elizabeth Nolan Brown (“In May 2020, a SWAT team burst into the Raleigh, North Carolina, home that … Continue reading →

Posted in Body cameras, Warrant execution | Comments Off on Reason: A SWAT Team Wrongfully Raided Her Home. Now Cops Say Footage From the Raid Is Private Since No One Was Killed.

TX: Exclusionary rule is statutory and harmless error analysis required

The Texas exclusionary rule is statutory and not a constitutional remedy since 1922. Thus, harmless error analysis is required, and the case remanded for that. Holder v. State, 2022 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 72 (Feb. 2, 2022). “Accordingly, under the … Continue reading →

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Plain view, feel, smell, Probation / Parole search, Seizure | Comments Off on TX: Exclusionary rule is statutory and harmless error analysis required

NC: Objection to seized evidence without a motion to suppress is waiver

Defendant objected at trial to admission of evidence, but it was not a timely motion to suppress. It is waived. State v. Draughon, 2022-NCCOA-58, 2022 N.C. App. LEXIS 53 (Feb. 1, 2022). Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not moving to … Continue reading →

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Waiver | Comments Off on NC: Objection to seized evidence without a motion to suppress is waiver

CA5: 17-day delay of package for investigation and SW was still reasonable

This 17-day delay in holding a package for investigation and developing probable cause for a search warrant was not unreasonable. There was reasonable suspicion for the initial detention, and, despite the delay, it was still reasonable. United States v. Martinez, … Continue reading →

Posted in Mail and packages, Reasonableness, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA5: 17-day delay of package for investigation and SW was still reasonable

D.Md.: Six-year delay in getting SW for cell phone unreasonable

Officers had defendant’s cell phone for nearly six years from 2015 to 2020, and he was in custody for much of the time. Searching the cell phone six years after seizure was unreasonable. United States v. Briscoe, 2022 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Reasonableness | Comments Off on D.Md.: Six-year delay in getting SW for cell phone unreasonable

D.S.D.: RS lacking: nervousness not enough, and remainder was minimal

USMJ’s report is rejected in part. On the reasonable suspicion finding: “Here, the government relies on several factors to establish reasonable suspicion. The court has found that some of these factors, such as the visibly pulsing heartbeat and rapid breathing, … Continue reading →

Posted in Excessive force, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.S.D.: RS lacking: nervousness not enough, and remainder was minimal

IL: Officer’s interpretation of lane movement statute was unreasonable and stop suppressed

Defendant’s move within his lane was clearly not a violation of the lane change statute, so the stop based on that was not objectively reasonable. The product of the stop is suppressed. People v. Jackson, 2022 IL App (3d) 190621, … Continue reading →

Posted in Reasonableness, Standards of review | Comments Off on IL: Officer’s interpretation of lane movement statute was unreasonable and stop suppressed

W.D.Okla.: Whether 14A or 4A applies to ptf’s excessive force claim on arrest before PC found by judicial officer, result the same

Plaintiff’s excessive force claim occurred after arrest but before a judicial determination of probable cause. “If so, Mr. Willis would not have been a pretrial detainee for purposes of Plaintiff’s excessive force claim. However, because the parties characterize him as … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Excessive force | Comments Off on W.D.Okla.: Whether 14A or 4A applies to ptf’s excessive force claim on arrest before PC found by judicial officer, result the same

NM: Dismissal of § 1983 excessive force case was not collateral estoppel for a state tort claims act case

Dismissal of a § 1983 excessive force case in federal court was not collateral estoppel for a state case under the state tort claims act. Hernandez v. Parker, 2022 N.M. App. LEXIS 5 (Feb. 1, 2022). Extending this stop was … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Excessive force, Issue preclusion, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on NM: Dismissal of § 1983 excessive force case was not collateral estoppel for a state tort claims act case

CA11: Failure to plead facts of standing or REP requires denial of motion to suppress

“If a defendant fails to plead sufficient facts to show a reasonable expectation of privacy, ‘a trial court may refuse a defendant’s request for a suppression hearing’ and deny his motion to suppress.” United States v. Robinson, 2022 U.S. App. … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Franks doctrine, Standing | Comments Off on CA11: Failure to plead facts of standing or REP requires denial of motion to suppress