Category Archives: Exclusionary rule

VA: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in revos

The exclusionary rule, along with a host of other things, doesn’t apply in revocation proceedings. Commonwealth v. Jackson, 2025 Va. LEXIS 57 (Nov. 20, 2025) (citing treatise § 9.16). The collective knowledge doctrine applies to traffic stops. United States v. … Continue reading

Posted in Collective knowledge, Exclusionary rule, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on VA: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in revos

CA6: Business’s sole other employee had apparent authority to consent

Plaintiff’s adult child was the sole other employee of the business, and he had apparent authority to consent to a search. For all practical purpose, he’s in charge, too. Rockwood Auto Parts, Inc. v. Monroe Cty., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS … Continue reading

Posted in Apparent authority, Exclusionary rule, F.R.Crim.P. 41, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA6: Business’s sole other employee had apparent authority to consent

TX13: Even if hemp and MJ smell similar, smell is still PC

The Dallas Court of Appeals “concluded that the odor of marijuana emanating from a vehicle gave an officer probable cause to search the vehicle and its occupants, even though the odor of marijuana is indistinguishable from the odor of hemp.” … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Probable cause | Comments Off on TX13: Even if hemp and MJ smell similar, smell is still PC

UT: State’s use of federal administrative subpoena to gather records for state sex crime does not require suppression

Getting the feds to administratively subpoena records for a sex offense involving a minor allegedly in violation of the Utah Electronic or Data Privacy Act (EIDPA) didn’t require suppression. State v. Andrus, 2025 UT 32 (Aug. 7, 2025):

Posted in Exclusionary rule, State constitution | Comments Off on UT: State’s use of federal administrative subpoena to gather records for state sex crime does not require suppression

W.D.N.Y.: Protective sweep was unjustified, and SW based on what seen was suppressed

Defendant had managerial control over the business property searched enough that he had standing to challenge its search. The security sweep of the second floor was not reasonable and, to the USMJ, “ma[de] no sense”; there was no articulable reason … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Independent source, Protective sweep | Comments Off on W.D.N.Y.: Protective sweep was unjustified, and SW based on what seen was suppressed

MO: Uncorroborated anonymous tip wasn’t PC and GFE doesn’t apply

Uncorroborated anonymous tip: “Because the affidavit relies almost entirely on an uncorroborated anonymous tip and includes no information regarding the tipster’s reliability or the specific details of the anonymous tip, it failed to supply the warrant-issuing judge with a reasonable … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception, Informant hearsay, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on MO: Uncorroborated anonymous tip wasn’t PC and GFE doesn’t apply

CA9: No REP in data in planted GPS device

Downloading data from a planted GPS device violated no reasonable expectation of privacy. McNeely v. Loeschner, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9537 (9th Cir. Apr. 22, 2025). The facts of the planted device are below: McNeely v. City of Sparks, 2024 … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Exclusionary rule, GPS / Tracking Data, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on CA9: No REP in data in planted GPS device

CA4: No downward variance for 4A violation in revocation of supervised release

Defendant was on supervised release and revoked. No downward variance because the search violated the Fourth Amendment and led to dismissal of that separate case. United States v. Corbett, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 8758 (4th Cir. Apr. 14, 2025). “In … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Informant hearsay, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA4: No downward variance for 4A violation in revocation of supervised release

Cal.1st: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to DL suspensions

The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to DL suspension proceedings. Kazelka v. Cal. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 196 (1st Dist. Mar. 27, 2025). Officers responded to a shots fired call in a Bronx apartment and entered and … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Probable cause, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on Cal.1st: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to DL suspensions

WA: Mandatory UAs valid on supervision despite not being related to crime of conviction

Even though mandatory UA for drug and alcohol don’t directly relate to defendant’s crimes of conviction, there still is a compelling interest in the state being able to test. State v. Nelson, 2025 Wash. LEXIS 150 (Mar. 27, 2025). The … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Exclusionary rule, Probable cause | Comments Off on WA: Mandatory UAs valid on supervision despite not being related to crime of conviction

CA9: Failure to tell def of precise reason for arrest when no warrant in hand did not warrant suppression

Suppression of defendant’s statements is not warranted for FBI agents’ violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 4(c)(3)(A), which provides that an arresting officer who does not possess a copy of the arrest warrant “must inform the defendant of the warrant’s … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, Exclusionary rule, Foreign searches, Nexus, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA9: Failure to tell def of precise reason for arrest when no warrant in hand did not warrant suppression

TX2: Concurring opinion where SW wasn’t based on PC

A concurring opinion where there wasn’t probable cause for a search warrant, which is really hard to do these days: Staley v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 1523 (Tex. App. – Ft. Worth Mar. 6, 2025)*:

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception, Probable cause | Comments Off on TX2: Concurring opinion where SW wasn’t based on PC

MO: GPS monitoring of a sex offender after release was reasonable

F.S.’s expectation of privacy is diminished as a convicted felon and registered sex offender, and the GPS monitoring’s intrusion on her privacy is slight. The state has a legitimate interest in protecting children and other potential victims from sex crimes. … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, GPS / Tracking Data, Reasonable suspicion, Waiver | Comments Off on MO: GPS monitoring of a sex offender after release was reasonable

D.P.R.: Statement taken in violation of Miranda likely usable for impeachment

Defendant’s statement allegedly in violation of Miranda that the government doesn’t intend to use may be used for impeachment if the defendant contradicts them under Harris. United States v. Cardona, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22757 (D.P.R. Feb. 6, 2025). Inferences … Continue reading

Posted in Custody, Exclusionary rule, Probable cause | Comments Off on D.P.R.: Statement taken in violation of Miranda likely usable for impeachment

W.D.Wash.: No exclusion where alleged misconduct was not flagrant

Here, there was the intervening circumstance of an arrest warrant. There was also probable cause. United States v. Howell, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10557 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 21, 2025)*:

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on W.D.Wash.: No exclusion where alleged misconduct was not flagrant

E.D.Pa.: Warrantless “emergency” entry without an emergency violated 4A but no suppression for isolated negligent act

Police did a “hit and hold” on defendant’s house without a warrant, a tactic reserved for emergencies. This was not, but it was an isolated act of negligence so the exclusionary rule will not be applied. United States v. Walker, … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on E.D.Pa.: Warrantless “emergency” entry without an emergency violated 4A but no suppression for isolated negligent act

CA1: SW was in good faith where affidavit was accidentally not filed with court

The Postal Inspector here prepared the search warrant affidavit, and the affidavit was to be incorporated with the warrant. The warrant was filed, however, by the USAO without the affidavit attached. The good faith exception applies. The officer did nothing … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception, Warrant papers | Comments Off on CA1: SW was in good faith where affidavit was accidentally not filed with court

PA: State failed in its burden of proof on inventory policy

The state failed to put on proof of the impoundment and inventory policy, so the trial court erred in finding it was reasonable. Commonwealth v. Brinson, 2024 PA Super 293, 2024 Pa. Super. LEXIS 536 (Dec. 9, 2024). Defendant’s car … Continue reading

Posted in Abandonment, Burden of proof, Exclusionary rule, Inventory, Standing | Comments Off on PA: State failed in its burden of proof on inventory policy

D.Mass.: Gun suppressed in FIPF case still not excludable in violation of supervised release

Defendant was an alleged felon in possession and was charged with a new federal crime and a violation of his supervised release. He was sentenced to 22 months on the violation. The gun was suppressed in the new gun case … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Exclusionary rule, Issue preclusion, Probation / Parole search, Voluntariness | Comments Off on D.Mass.: Gun suppressed in FIPF case still not excludable in violation of supervised release

IL: Arrest on recalled AW not suppressed where officers checked and rechecked it

Officers checked a law enforcement database and found an arrest warrant on defendant. They rechecked. Afterward, it turned out the warrant had been recalled but was still in the system due to a clerical error. The court will not suppress … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception, Probable cause, Reasonableness | Comments Off on IL: Arrest on recalled AW not suppressed where officers checked and rechecked it