Category Archives: Suppression hearings

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

WA: If the state wants to dismiss after a motion to suppress is granted, it may; court can’t force a trial

After a suppression motion suppressed most of the evidence against defendant, the state elected to dismiss. The trial court wouldn’t let them and made the case proceed to trial, convicting the defendant on what was left, which wasn’t much. “Addressing … Continue reading

Posted in Suppression hearings | Comments Off on WA: If the state wants to dismiss after a motion to suppress is granted, it may; court can’t force a trial

NY3: Call about attempted suicide led to def’s girlfriend’s consent which included reading the suicide note which admitted to repeated rape and murder

Defendant’s girlfriend called the police because he’d threatened suicide in a phone call, and she consented to a search of their house. In the house the police found a notebook with a suicide note inside, and it was properly seized … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on NY3: Call about attempted suicide led to def’s girlfriend’s consent which included reading the suicide note which admitted to repeated rape and murder

S.D.Ohio: Def’s girlfriend’s standing testimony rejected because it sounded “scripted” and because she didn’t smell the 100 pds of MJ she was standing near regularly for days

Defendant claimed standing in his girlfriend’s house because he regularly spent the night there. Her testimony was rejected because it sounded “scripted” and inherently unreliable because she claimed she didn’t smell 100 pounds of marijuana in her basement even though … Continue reading

Posted in Standing, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on S.D.Ohio: Def’s girlfriend’s standing testimony rejected because it sounded “scripted” and because she didn’t smell the 100 pds of MJ she was standing near regularly for days

KY: Confrontation clause doesn’t apply in suppression hearings

The Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause doesn’t apply to a suppression hearing to get the typical CI on the stand to attack his reliability. [Now, if the CI was a material witness to the case under Roviaro, likely so.] Hawkins v. … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on KY: Confrontation clause doesn’t apply in suppression hearings