Category Archives: Issue preclusion

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

TN: DNA sample was subject to inevitable discovery where def was subjected to another one for a homicide two years later

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not objecting to a DNA sample where defendant claimed it exceeded his consent. The post-conviction court found that it didn’t. Moreover, discovery was inevitable because another DNA sample was validly taken two years later as … Continue reading

Posted in DNA, Inevitable discovery, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on TN: DNA sample was subject to inevitable discovery where def was subjected to another one for a homicide two years later

Law.com: Analysis: Seventh and Ninth Circuits Decide Important ‘Heck’ Issues

Law.com: Analysis: Seventh and Ninth Circuits Decide Important ‘Heck’ Issues by Martin A. Schwartz (“The Supreme Court in ‘Heck’ held that a §1983 constitutional claim that ‘necessarily’ implies the invalidity of the plaintiff’s conviction is not ‘cognizable’ unless the conviction … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on Law.com: Analysis: Seventh and Ninth Circuits Decide Important ‘Heck’ Issues

CA7: Consenter had apparent authority; no signs she might not have actual authority

Based on all the evidence, the consenter had apparent authority to consent to the search of the house. While she’d supposedly moved out, she had a key and still had stuff there, and the officers had no suggestion that she … Continue reading

Posted in Apparent authority, Issue preclusion, Staleness | Comments Off on CA7: Consenter had apparent authority; no signs she might not have actual authority

OH5: Trial judge signing SW wasn’t ground to recuse

The trial judge having signed a search warrant wasn’t grounds to recuse at trial. Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not raising it. The validity of the search wasn’t even an issue. State v. Ray, 2020-Ohio-1265, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 1197 … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Issue preclusion, Neutral and detached magistrate | Comments Off on OH5: Trial judge signing SW wasn’t ground to recuse

D.Idaho: Faint smell of MJ and “excessive nervousness” not RS

Faint smell of marijuana and nervousness was not reasonable suspicion. The court also doesn’t find the travel plans at all suspicious. United States v. Lee, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33091 (D. Idaho Feb. 25, 2020). Plaintiff’s nolo plea barred his … Continue reading

Posted in Issue preclusion, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.Idaho: Faint smell of MJ and “excessive nervousness” not RS

IA: Navigable waters belong to the state, no matter who owns the bottom land; stop was based on RS

Defendant claims his stop for boating under the influence wasn’t valid under the Fourth Amendment and Iowa Constitution because the body of water sat over private lands. Navigable waters belong to the state, and the officer had reasonable suspicion to … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Issue preclusion, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on IA: Navigable waters belong to the state, no matter who owns the bottom land; stop was based on RS

CA7: Trying and losing a 4A claim in state court precludes § 1983 case over same issue

Plaintiff was arrested for drunk driving and convicted in local court after raising his Fourth Amendment claim there. He sued everybody involved in his arrest. The court finds him precluded from relitigating it in federal court under § 1983. Novotny … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Issue preclusion, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA7: Trying and losing a 4A claim in state court precludes § 1983 case over same issue