Category Archives: Admissibility of evidence

CA5: Expert opinion on reasonableness in 1983 case improper

“We first find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding portions of testimony from two of Albert’s expert witnesses—Richard Lichten, a police-procedure expert, and Dr. Kris Sperry, the former Chief Medical Examiner for the State of … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Admissibility of evidence | Comments Off on CA5: Expert opinion on reasonableness in 1983 case improper

W.D.N.Y.: Exigency usually applies in seizure of computer for CP

“Given that the Defendant admitted that he had used the laptop to view child pornography previously, it appears beyond dispute that Couch had such probable cause. … [¶] Defendant instead argues that the Government failed to prove that an exigent … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Emergency / exigency | Comments Off on W.D.N.Y.: Exigency usually applies in seizure of computer for CP

TN: Motion to suppress wasn’t decided but state didn’t offer evidence at trial until defense opened the door; admitted as 404(b)

The state sought a search warrant for cell phones and then lost the product before trial. They still had the phones and looked again without a warrant just before trial. Defendant moved to suppress but argued that the phones weren’t … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Cell phones | Comments Off on TN: Motion to suppress wasn’t decided but state didn’t offer evidence at trial until defense opened the door; admitted as 404(b)

NE: Typographical error on date in SW application can be overlooked if apparent it’s wrong

A typographical error in the date of the application for search warrant could be overlooked where the actual date can be determined from the whole. State v. Benson, 305 Neb. 949 (May 29, 2020). Defendant moved to suppress his DNA … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Probable cause, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on NE: Typographical error on date in SW application can be overlooked if apparent it’s wrong

TX13: Affidavit for SW shouldn’t have been admitted at trial, but it was harmless error as cumulative

The state conceded error that the affidavit for defendant’s blood search warrant should not have been admitted into evidence at trial. (Defendant objected to a paragraph of hearsay.) It was, however, harmless error and merely cumulative to what the officer … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Prison and jail searches | Comments Off on TX13: Affidavit for SW shouldn’t have been admitted at trial, but it was harmless error as cumulative

CA10: Admission of CSLI evidence requires a witness for confrontation purposes

CSLI information obtained by warrant still requires a witness to explain them for confrontation purposes. State v. Lawson, 2020-Ohio-3004, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 1952 (10th Dist. May 19, 2020). Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not moving to suppress CSLI three … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Cell site location information, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on CA10: Admission of CSLI evidence requires a witness for confrontation purposes

OR: State didn’t prove abandonment of hotel room by supposedly checking out early

Just because hotel tenants leave the room and carries bags to their car at 8 am and saying nothing doesn’t indicate they have checked out and abandoned the room. Hotel room renters commonly do that and go to meetings and … Continue reading

Posted in Abandonment, Admissibility of evidence, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on OR: State didn’t prove abandonment of hotel room by supposedly checking out early

CA7: Even though the 4A was complied with, if the question is relevance or prejudice, a motion in limine is proper, not a motion to suppress

Just because the Fourth Amendment was complied with doesn’t mean that the evidence seized is relevant (Rule 401) or the evidence could be more prejudicial than relevant (Rule 403). Then, suppression isn’t the remedy – a motion in limine is. … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Arrest or entry on arrest, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on CA7: Even though the 4A was complied with, if the question is relevance or prejudice, a motion in limine is proper, not a motion to suppress

W.D.Wash.: A filter team is required for execution of an allegedly overbroad SW

A filter team isn’t required just because a Facebook account search warrant is alleged to be overbroad. United States v. Sam, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79023 (W.D. Wash. May 5, 2020). Hearsay in a search warrant isn’t less believable solely … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Burden of pleading, Overbreadth, Warrant execution | Comments Off on W.D.Wash.: A filter team is required for execution of an allegedly overbroad SW

ID: Def’s probationary status was admissible at trial to show context for probation search, not as propensity evidence

The fact defendant was on probation was admissible at trial, not as propensity evidence, but to show context for the probation search and why defendant’s underwear was searched. State v. Jones, 2020 Ida. LEXIS 95 (May 4, 2020). Automatic license … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on ID: Def’s probationary status was admissible at trial to show context for probation search, not as propensity evidence

AR: Error in officers’ testimony as to place actually searched was properly excluded at trial as potentially confusing where it was clearly def’s place

Police confusion at trial as to the address actually searched wasn’t relevant, and the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in foreclosing questions about that for confusion of the issues. “But his argument ignores the undisputed proof that the drugs … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Drug or alcohol testing | Comments Off on AR: Error in officers’ testimony as to place actually searched was properly excluded at trial as potentially confusing where it was clearly def’s place

GA: Officers had PC a knife used in a murder was in a well; the SW said “curtilage” and didn’t have to say “well” to be valid

Officers obtained a search warrant involving a 34½ year old murder. After charges were filed the state sought a second search warrant to search a well for evidence. There was a substantial basis for searching the well based on the … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Curtilage | Comments Off on GA: Officers had PC a knife used in a murder was in a well; the SW said “curtilage” and didn’t have to say “well” to be valid

E.D.N.C.: On a video that’s integral to the PC, the reliability of the time stamp isn’t to be inquired into or it becomes a “hypertechnical” review

Defendant was on a surveillance video 33 days before a search warrant was sought for the weapon since he was a felon. The warrant was not stale because people almost always keep firearms for a long time. Defendant’s challenge to … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Burden of pleading, Staleness | Comments Off on E.D.N.C.: On a video that’s integral to the PC, the reliability of the time stamp isn’t to be inquired into or it becomes a “hypertechnical” review

D.Mont.: Incidents leading to SW doesn’t necessarily make them relevant for trial; motion in limine granted

Prior incidents led to the search warrant here, but that doesn’t make them admissible in this trial. Motion in limine granted. United States v. Knapp, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177213 (D. Mont. Oct. 11, 2019). The plaintiff didn’t overcome the … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence | Comments Off on D.Mont.: Incidents leading to SW doesn’t necessarily make them relevant for trial; motion in limine granted

AZ: Presenting a consent form after def lawyers-up doesn’t violate Miranda

Defendant was Mirandized, and she lawyered up. She was presented with a consent form for her cell phone with the understanding that if she didn’t consent they’d get a search warrant. She didn’t ask for a lawyer, and she consented. … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Consent | Comments Off on AZ: Presenting a consent form after def lawyers-up doesn’t violate Miranda

W.D.Wash.: A private actor who stole evidence as “insurance” was not an agent of the state for 4A purposes

“The evidence at best suggests that Young was securing the information he eventually turned over to the FBI from NWTM as a form of personal insurance against any action he suspected might be taken against him. There is no evidence … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Private search | Comments Off on W.D.Wash.: A private actor who stole evidence as “insurance” was not an agent of the state for 4A purposes