Category Archives: Suppression hearings

CA6: No showing insurance company’s investigative report was cause of his arrest; also didn’t plead state action

Plaintiff sued his insurance company for participating in his false arrest because they submitted their own investigative file to law enforcement. There is no evidence that law enforcement didn’t conduct its own independent analysis of what they received. In addition, … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on CA6: No showing insurance company’s investigative report was cause of his arrest; also didn’t plead state action

CA10: District court was within its discretion to limit cross as to extraneous matters in SW affidavit at suppression hearing in light of issues

In light of the controlled buy that formed the basis for the search warrant here, the district court acted within its discretion in limiting broad cross-examination of the officer about what it found were extraneous matters in the affidavit. The … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on CA10: District court was within its discretion to limit cross as to extraneous matters in SW affidavit at suppression hearing in light of issues

CT: When challenging a SW affidavit’s PC, it needs to be in the record for appellate review

“The record was inadequate to review the defendant’s unpreserved claim that the search warrant for M’s cell phone records and the warrant for his arrest were obtained without probable cause because the police included false information in the affidavits in … Continue reading

Posted in Suppression hearings | Comments Off on CT: When challenging a SW affidavit’s PC, it needs to be in the record for appellate review

OH6: Not having a full suppression hearing and limiting issues was sound strategy

Defense counsel’s strategy was to attack probable cause, and a full suppression hearing was to be avoided, because that would surely lose. That was sound strategy at the time. State v. Nettles, 2018-Ohio-4908, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 5237 (6th Dist. … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on OH6: Not having a full suppression hearing and limiting issues was sound strategy

OH5: Suppression motion cannot be denied solely for def’s nonappearance at hearing

Defendant failed to appear for his suppression hearing, and the trial court denied the motion based on that. He has a constitutional right to be present, and the court could not deny the motion solely on that ground. Reversed. If … Continue reading

Posted in Suppression hearings | Comments Off on OH5: Suppression motion cannot be denied solely for def’s nonappearance at hearing

N.D.Fla.: Rehearing denied; interruptions of counsel during suppression hearing were because counsel was wasting time asking repetitive questions; she lost on merits, not because of interruptions

Defendant’s motion for rehearing of the motion to suppress is denied. Defense counsel was interrupted during the witness examination, but it was because the questioning was repetitive and beating a dead horse. She lost on the merits and lack of … Continue reading

Posted in Suppression hearings | Comments Off on N.D.Fla.: Rehearing denied; interruptions of counsel during suppression hearing were because counsel was wasting time asking repetitive questions; she lost on merits, not because of interruptions

D.Nev.: Def couldn’t show that hotel room was searched without a warrant by the information off the electronic lock which was unreliable

Defendant alleges that officers searched his LV hotel room before the search warrant arrived. The information from the electronic lock is not reliable [so there, CSI] as to the entries into the room, and the search warrant is valid. United … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on D.Nev.: Def couldn’t show that hotel room was searched without a warrant by the information off the electronic lock which was unreliable

CA4: Def’s cross of officer at trial on SW affidavit “opened the door” to def’s priors

Defendant’s cross examination of the officer who authored the affidavit for the search warrant to attack his credibility by the affidavit “opened the door” to defendant’s other crimes which were admitted under 404(b) on the government’s request on redirect. United … Continue reading

Posted in Standards of review, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on CA4: Def’s cross of officer at trial on SW affidavit “opened the door” to def’s priors

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