Category Archives: Suppression hearings

S.D.Ga.: Geofence warrant based on 16 SWs showed PC and GFE

(1) Defendant lacks standing to challenge a geofence warrant to the cell phone accounts held by others. The affidavits for 16 warrants all showed probable cause. The possibility of a different standing for probable cause for novel surveillance is rejected. … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Standing, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on S.D.Ga.: Geofence warrant based on 16 SWs showed PC and GFE

NM: Suppression issues should not be decided at preliminary hearings

A preliminary hearing isn’t a proper place to resolve potential suppression issues. They happen on a “brisk time line” and the rules of evidence don’t apply to them. This is committed to the pretrial process in the trial courts. State … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Roadblocks, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on NM: Suppression issues should not be decided at preliminary hearings

OH4: No bar to judge who issued SW also hearing suppression motion

There is no due process or judicial ethics restriction on a suppression hearing judge hearing the validity of the warrant he or she issued. State v. Taylor, 2023-Ohio-2995, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 2982 n.1 (4th Dist. Aug. 22, 2023):

Posted in Neutral and detached magistrate, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on OH4: No bar to judge who issued SW also hearing suppression motion

CA10: 2255 petitioner learned after guilty plea A-C communications were recorded in jail; no relief from plea because no effect shown

2255 petitioner was in pretrial incarceration in the private jail in Leavenworth which notoriously recorded conversations between attorneys and clients. He pled guilty with the standard 2255 waiver. This violation of his rights does not survive the waiver, and he … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Prison and jail searches, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on CA10: 2255 petitioner learned after guilty plea A-C communications were recorded in jail; no relief from plea because no effect shown

OH5, D.Minn.: Not calling additional witnesses at suppression hearing didn’t change outcome

There was reasonable suspicion for the stop here, and defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not calling another witness that wouldn’t have changed the outcome. State v. Ware, 2023-Ohio-1807 (5th Dist. May 30, 2023).* In a tax warrant case, defense counsel … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Probation / Parole search, Suppression hearings, Warrant execution | Comments Off on OH5, D.Minn.: Not calling additional witnesses at suppression hearing didn’t change outcome

NJ: Disputes in the facts on appeal show trial court should have held a hearing

“[W]e are persuaded the conflicting statements of fact presented by the State and defendant establish disputes of material fact warranting a testimonial hearing. The State claimed the search was justified under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. Thus, … Continue reading

Posted in Suppression hearings | Comments Off on NJ: Disputes in the facts on appeal show trial court should have held a hearing

CA11: Without a factual dispute, there’s no requirement of a suppression hearing

The suppression “hearing” was a five-minute discussion of the law, and there were no factual disputes presented. Therefore, “defendant need not be present for any ‘conference or hearing on a question of law.’ Fed. R. Crim. P. 43(b)(3).” United States … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, F.R.Crim.P. 41, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on CA11: Without a factual dispute, there’s no requirement of a suppression hearing

OH3: Def’s motion to determine legality of arrest never sought to suppress anything and wasn’t appealable

Defendant’s motion to determine the legality of his arrest was not even called a motion to suppress. It was not even appealable as it was framed. “[T]he motion filed by Sanchez on October 28, 2020, was not captioned a ‘motion … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Motion to suppress, Probation / Parole search, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on OH3: Def’s motion to determine legality of arrest never sought to suppress anything and wasn’t appealable

CA10: “perfunctory factual references” with three legal theories not enough to get a suppression hearing

“Rather than outline factual disputes, Windom’s motion to suppress offered three legal arguments—staleness, nexus, and lack of good faith—for why the affidavit was insufficient to support a search warrant. These arguments contained only perfunctory factual references, with none rising to … Continue reading

Posted in Inevitable discovery, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on CA10: “perfunctory factual references” with three legal theories not enough to get a suppression hearing

D.N.J.: Why a suppression hearing is sometimes needed

The hearing here got behind the boilerplate of the police reports and results in the stop being without reasonable suspicion, and it is suppressed. United States v. Wright, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133312 (D.N.J. July 27, 2022):

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on D.N.J.: Why a suppression hearing is sometimes needed

E.D.Tenn.: Challenge of CI’s ID of def in 4A suppression hearing not the remedy; that’s a trial question

Defendant seeks suppression of the CI’s identification of him within the search warrant process, which the court declines to do. Due process issues with identification are trial issues, not Fourth Amendment motion to suppress issues. “Either remedy, exclusion of the … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Standing, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on E.D.Tenn.: Challenge of CI’s ID of def in 4A suppression hearing not the remedy; that’s a trial question

D.Maine: Officer’s subjective motivations for crime fighting didn’t make an otherwise reasonable traffic stop unreasonable

The state trooper that stopped defendant for an objective traffic violation apparently had subjective motivation to look for other crimes, but his subjective motives aren’t determinative of anything. United States v. Fagan, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141949 (D. Maine July … Continue reading

Posted in Attenuation, Reasonable suspicion, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on D.Maine: Officer’s subjective motivations for crime fighting didn’t make an otherwise reasonable traffic stop unreasonable

CA7: Confrontation clause doesn’t apply in suppression hearings

The confrontation clause does not apply in suppression hearings. United States v. Bebris, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 20974 (7th Cir. July 15, 2021). The apartment’s search warrant was for evidence of drug sales from it. Those found there at the … Continue reading

Posted in Privileges, Probable cause, Protective sweep, Stop and frisk, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on CA7: Confrontation clause doesn’t apply in suppression hearings

CA4: No REP in FedEx packages with drugs sent to a dead man as a cover

Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in FedEx packages with drugs sent to a friend’s house in the name of the friend’s deceased brother. United States v. Rose, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 20406 (4th Cir. July 9, 2021). When … Continue reading

Posted in Inventory, Mail and packages, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on CA4: No REP in FedEx packages with drugs sent to a dead man as a cover

FL5: Police report’s stating search was search incident isn’t binding at the suppression hearing

The officer’s noting the search of defendant’s vehicle was incident to arrest was incorrect and not binding at the suppression hearing. It was valid as an inventory. State v. Koontz, 2021 Fla. App. LEXIS 9019 (Fla. 5th DCA June 18, … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Inventory, Search incident, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on FL5: Police report’s stating search was search incident isn’t binding at the suppression hearing

CA3: No suppression hearing needed on the mere chance something will turn up

The request for an evidentiary hearing on a suppression motion based on the mere hope something might turn up is really just speculation and should be denied. United States v. Dfouni, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 15091 (3d Cir. May 19, … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Burden of pleading, Strip search, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on CA3: No suppression hearing needed on the mere chance something will turn up

CA3: Mid-trial suppression argument wasn’t timely

Defendant’s mid-trial suppression motion was untimely despite the defense claim that this was a second search he wasn’t aware of until it came up at trial. United States v. Elcock, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 9503 (3d Cir. Apr. 1, 2021). … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Standards of review, Suppression hearings, Waiver | Comments Off on CA3: Mid-trial suppression argument wasn’t timely

M.D.Tenn.: Def failed to show parole search was unreasonble

This parole search wasn’t shown to be unreasonable. “As discussed in the above cited case law, there is a significant government interest in combating recidivism and thwarting illegal drug activity by parolees. Defendant has failed to point to any direct … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Probation / Parole search, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on M.D.Tenn.: Def failed to show parole search was unreasonble

Cal.2: Litigating a motion to suppress with an affidavit sealed in part from the defense

People v. Washington, 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 196 (2d Dist. Mar. 9, 2021):

Posted in Informant hearsay, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on Cal.2: Litigating a motion to suppress with an affidavit sealed in part from the defense

D.D.C.: 6A, due process, and F.R.Crim.P. 43 don’t mandate in person 4A suppression hearings during Covid

The court prefers to hold suppression hearings in person because, in many cases, it is the most important pretrial proceeding. But, while a suppression hearing is a critical stage where the right to effective assistance of counsel has attached, the … Continue reading

Posted in Suppression hearings | Comments Off on D.D.C.: 6A, due process, and F.R.Crim.P. 43 don’t mandate in person 4A suppression hearings during Covid