Category Archives: Suppression hearings

IL: Not error for court to decline to continue suppression hearing for what would have been merely cumulative evidence having no affect on outcome

It was not error to deny a continuance in a suppression hearing after it started because one officer was unavailable due to a death in the family. The defense didn’t even know what he would testify to when asked, but … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on IL: Not error for court to decline to continue suppression hearing for what would have been merely cumulative evidence having no affect on outcome

AR: Suppression hearing is a critical stage requiring counsel

A suppression hearing is a critical stage, and defendant’s being forced to go through a suppression hearing without counsel violated the Sixth Amendment. Shabazz v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 399, 2018 Ark. App. LEXIS 499 (Sep. 5, 2018). Defendant’s consent … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on AR: Suppression hearing is a critical stage requiring counsel

N.D.W.Va.: A motion to suppress isn’t moot just because the govt says it won’t use the evidence in its case-in-chief; if it will to impeach, then the issue has to be resolved

Government’s agreeing it wouldn’t use the product of a search in its case in chief does not make it moot unless the government also says it won’t use it in impeachment. Then, it can only be used against the defendant … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Franks doctrine, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on N.D.W.Va.: A motion to suppress isn’t moot just because the govt says it won’t use the evidence in its case-in-chief; if it will to impeach, then the issue has to be resolved

OK: Trial court’s granting motion to suppress without even considering GFE on state’s request was an abuse of discretion

The trial court abused its discretion in granting the motion to suppress the search warrant without even considering the good faith exception after the state raised it. State v. Haliburton, 2018 OK CR 28, 2018 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 28 … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on OK: Trial court’s granting motion to suppress without even considering GFE on state’s request was an abuse of discretion

ME: Def was about to go into surgery after suspected DWI and accident; warrantless blood draw was with exigency and PC

Defendant was in a serious accident, and he was about to go into surgery. The blood draw at the request of the police was with exigent circumstances and probable cause. State v. Palmer, 2018 ME 108, 2018 Me. LEXIS 111 … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Emergency / exigency, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on ME: Def was about to go into surgery after suspected DWI and accident; warrantless blood draw was with exigency and PC

D.Nev.: While def’s firearm was suppressed, it can come in by impeachment if he opens the door at trial

Defendant’s firearm was previously suppressed. If at trial he opens the door to the gun, it can be referred to by proper impeachment. United States v. Casarez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112536 (D. Nev. July 6, 2018). Defendant was granted … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on D.Nev.: While def’s firearm was suppressed, it can come in by impeachment if he opens the door at trial

GA: In responding to 911 call of a loud party where homeowners weren’t present, entry into backyard violated curtilage

Police received a report of a party going on at a house, and they walked to the back of the house where it was. There were many people on a deck, and they suspected from a radio call that the … Continue reading

Posted in Curtilage, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on GA: In responding to 911 call of a loud party where homeowners weren’t present, entry into backyard violated curtilage

N.D.Ill.: Collins v. Virginia doesn’t apply to a shared parking area which is not curtilage

Collins v. Virginia does not apply to shared parking areas which are not curtilage. “United States v. Jones, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 16409 (2d Cir. June 19, 2018), Jones’s vehicle was parked in a parking lot behind the multi-family building … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Curtilage, Standing, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on N.D.Ill.: Collins v. Virginia doesn’t apply to a shared parking area which is not curtilage

OH2: Trial court can’t add an issue to a suppression hearing without notice to parties

“[T]he State contends that the trial court improperly expanded the scope of Day’s motion to suppress to include the issue of whether the manner/location of Day’s arrest was lawful and then based its decision on that issue. We have held … Continue reading

Posted in Suppression hearings | Comments Off on OH2: Trial court can’t add an issue to a suppression hearing without notice to parties

D.N.J.: Previous finding of good faith applies to later Franks challenge

Defendant had already filed a suppression motion and lost on good faith. Now he files a motion based on Franks that statements of witnesses in quote marks weren’t accurate. The previous finding of good faith carries over to here, and … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Staleness, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on D.N.J.: Previous finding of good faith applies to later Franks challenge

AR: The right to counsel applies at suppression hearings

The right to counsel applies at suppression hearings. Defendant’s attempted waiver was ineffective. Shabazz v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 281, 2018 Ark. App. LEXIS 298 (May 2, 2018). The officer writing the affidavit misstated the evidence that another officer smelled … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on AR: The right to counsel applies at suppression hearings

CA11: There is no adverse inference as a matter of law from failure to maintain audio of stop

Because the exclusionary rule is a “last resort,” on plain error review, defendant cannot claim error for the failure of the district court to determine that his version of the facts is more credible than the governments. There is no … Continue reading

Posted in Body cameras, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on CA11: There is no adverse inference as a matter of law from failure to maintain audio of stop