Category Archives: Exclusionary rule

D.Mont.: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to sentencing

“Rankin claimed counsel should have sought to suppress some of the evidence used at sentencing, but the exclusionary rule does not apply at sentencing.” United States v. Rankin, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100129 (D. Mont. June 15, 2018). The affidavit … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Probable cause | Comments Off on D.Mont.: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to sentencing

N.D.Ill.: No constitutional requirement that police car recording equipment be used

“Defendant objects to the magistrate judge’s probable cause determination asserting that ‘defendant believes’ that where a police car is equipped with video recording equipment the officer should be required to use it and that his testimony alone should not be … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on N.D.Ill.: No constitutional requirement that police car recording equipment be used

VA: Stop outside officer’s jurisdiction not subject to suppression

Defendant was seen speeding by a VMI police officer who followed him. The actual stop was off the campus. There was probable cause for the stop and arrest, and, even if the officer was outside his jurisdiction, suppression is not … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on VA: Stop outside officer’s jurisdiction not subject to suppression

W.D.Ky.: Backup officer to traffic stop immediately used drug dog, and that wasn’t unreasonable

Defendants’ failure to stop at stop signs was justification for the stop. A backup officer with a drug dog did a dog sniff around the car while the basic stuff of the traffic stop was being done. This did not … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on W.D.Ky.: Backup officer to traffic stop immediately used drug dog, and that wasn’t unreasonable

N.D.Ga.: No suppression remedy for alleged HIPAA violation by police

“Moreover, although Defendant initially responded to Kinser’s request for consent by stating, ‘You’re going to do what you’re going to do’ (Tr. 45), Kinser did not then begin searching his car. Instead, Kinser again asked for Defendant’s consent (id.), thus … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: No suppression remedy for alleged HIPAA violation by police

W.D.Tex.: In CA5, a person’s identity and nationality is not subject to the exclusionary rule

In the Fifth Circuit, a person’s identity and nationality is not subject to the exclusionary rule. United States v. Meza-Gonzalez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63254 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 16, 2018). Defendant fails on the second prong of Franks: excising the … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on W.D.Tex.: In CA5, a person’s identity and nationality is not subject to the exclusionary rule

MI: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in child protective proceedings

The exclusionary rule does not apply in child protective proceedings. In re Kirschner, 2018 Mich. App. LEXIS 1093 (Apr. 3, 2018):

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on MI: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in child protective proceedings

D.R.I.: Delay in getting cell phone SW as attributed to parties’ settlement discussions

The delay in getting a search warrant for defendant’s cell phones was caused in part by the parties’ negotiations over pre-indictment resolution, and it was reasonable. United States v. Boudreau, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48686 (D. R.I. Mar. 24, 2018).* … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, F.R.Crim.P. 41 | Comments Off on D.R.I.: Delay in getting cell phone SW as attributed to parties’ settlement discussions

WA: Second SW for records already produced was independent source; exclusionary rule won’t be applied

Verizon produced phone records under a court order, that later was determined to be invalid. A second order was issued for the same records. Verizon didn’t produce those records the second time because the first had been produced and they … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Independent source | Comments Off on WA: Second SW for records already produced was independent source; exclusionary rule won’t be applied

GA: Allegedly illegally seized journals the state agreed not to use could be used as prior inconsistent statements when def testified

Defendant’s journals were allegedly illegally seized, and the state agreed not to use them. Defendant testified, and the state sought to put the journals into evidence for impeachment as a prior inconsistent statement. When the trial court allowed it, defendant … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Exclusionary rule, Protective sweep | Comments Off on GA: Allegedly illegally seized journals the state agreed not to use could be used as prior inconsistent statements when def testified

S.D.Cal.: If you’re suing over a SW issued on false allegations, somebody has to put the SW papers in the MSJ pleadings; nobody did, so denied

This is an excessive force and illegal search claim where plaintiff claimed her husband was unreasonable killed in violation of the Fourth Amendment and state law. It also included a claim that the search warrant was obtained by judicial deception. … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Conflict of laws, Exclusionary rule, Ineffective assistance | Comments Off on S.D.Cal.: If you’re suing over a SW issued on false allegations, somebody has to put the SW papers in the MSJ pleadings; nobody did, so denied

W.D.Pa.: Ordering occupants to stay in parked car officer pulled up behind was a seizure, but with RS

The officer pulled up behind defendant’s parked car. “[T]he Court concludes that the officers pulling up behind the parked vehicle constituted a mere encounter that did not ripen into a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes until Sergeant Spangler ordered Defendant … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: Ordering occupants to stay in parked car officer pulled up behind was a seizure, but with RS