Category Archives: Suppression hearings

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

E.D. Mich.: Officers’ (and government’s) assertion of consent is so false it “tarnishes the entirety of the Government’s case.”

Officers’ (and government’s) assertion of consent is so false it “tarnishes the entirety of the Government’s case.” There was nothing near reasonable suspicion or consent. United States v. Smith, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62041 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 12, 2018):

Posted in Consent, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on E.D. Mich.: Officers’ (and government’s) assertion of consent is so false it “tarnishes the entirety of the Government’s case.”

TN: Argument “the rule” of witness exclusion of Rule 615 at suppression hearing has to be made in trial court

Defendant didn’t preserve for appeal his argument that the suppression hearing court allowed witnesses to sit in the rehearing of the suppression hearing because he didn’t make it to the trial court. At any rate, the transcripts of the hearing … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on TN: Argument “the rule” of witness exclusion of Rule 615 at suppression hearing has to be made in trial court

TN: There’s normally no reason why the judge that issued the SW would be a witness at a suppression hearing on a Franks motion

The judge that issued the search warrant is not required to recuse from being the trial judge, so there was no ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to raise that issue. Moreover, the issuing judge would not be a witness … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on TN: There’s normally no reason why the judge that issued the SW would be a witness at a suppression hearing on a Franks motion

The Champion: Breaking Blue: Challenging Police Officer Credibility at Motions to Suppress

Jennifer Sellitti, Breaking Blue: Challenging Police Officer Credibility at Motions to Suppress, 41 The Champion (No. 10) 16 (Dec. 2017):

Posted in Suppression hearings | Comments Off on The Champion: Breaking Blue: Challenging Police Officer Credibility at Motions to Suppress

LA2: Hearsay admissible in suppression hearings; here it was officer’s preliminary hearing testimony which showed exigency

Hearsay is admissible in a suppression hearing. The parties agreed here that the officer’s testimony at the preliminary hearing would be the basis for the suppression hearing, and it shows exigent circumstances for the entry into defendant’s home. State v. … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on LA2: Hearsay admissible in suppression hearings; here it was officer’s preliminary hearing testimony which showed exigency

LA5: Hearsay on driver’s consent admissible at suppression hearing

The trial court found the stop was reasonable for shooting from a car and driver consented based on the testimony of the stopping officer. Defendant’s claim that the driver’s consent was hearsay and inadmissible was rejected. All other exceptions for … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on LA5: Hearsay on driver’s consent admissible at suppression hearing

TN: Officer’s recollection refreshed was credited by trial court and followed on appeal

The trooper who stopped defendant had no independent recollection of defendant’s stop, but looking at the video and reading the reports was past recollection refreshed, and the officer’s testimony was then credited by the trial court. The stop was found … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on TN: Officer’s recollection refreshed was credited by trial court and followed on appeal

TN: Judge who issued SW can also try the case

It doesn’t violate any law or constitutional provision for a state trial court judge to issue a search warrant and then preside over the trial of the case. McKinley v. State, 2018 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 91 (Feb. 9, 2018). … Continue reading

Posted in Due process, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on TN: Judge who issued SW can also try the case