Category Archives: Exclusionary rule

WA: Reversal for unreasonable search of cell phone was required, not dismissal

The court of appeals erred in dismissing defendant’s case rather than reversing for a new trial after cell phone evidence was suppressed. There was other untainted evidence the state could use to try to convict on a retrial. State v. … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Scope of search | Comments Off on WA: Reversal for unreasonable search of cell phone was required, not dismissal

Collins v. Virginia on remand: GFE saves the search

Collins v. Virginia on remand: The good faith exception applies to sustain the search because no reasonably well trained officer would have known that automobile exception would apply on the curtilage in the garage. Collins v. Commonwealth, 2019 Va. LEXIS … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception | Comments Off on Collins v. Virginia on remand: GFE saves the search

WI: Exclusionary rule applies to forfeiture actions; remanded for determination of GFE

The exclusionary rule applies to forfeiture actions under 1958 Plymouth Sedan; however, the state gets to argue and develop a record on remand that the good faith exception applies. State v. Scott, 2019 Wisc. App. LEXIS 191 (Apr. 4, 2019). … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on WI: Exclusionary rule applies to forfeiture actions; remanded for determination of GFE

CA10: 404(b) evidence is subject to 4A exclusion, but harmless error applies

404(b) evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is subject to suppression. United States v. Hill, 60 F.3d 672, 677 (10th Cir. 1995). Here, however, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Dalton, 2019 U.S. App. … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA10: 404(b) evidence is subject to 4A exclusion, but harmless error applies

CA9: Exclusionary rule applies to tribal officers

The exclusionary rule applies to tribal officers conducting illegal searches or searches off their tribal lands under the Indian Civil Rights Act or the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Cooley, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 8344 (9th Cir. Mar. 21, 2019). … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on CA9: Exclusionary rule applies to tribal officers

MA: There were objectively PC and exigency for a warrantless search of def’s hands for DNA from a homicide

There was objective probable cause for a warrantless search of defendant’s hands for potential DNA in a murder case because it was easily destructible. There was also sufficient probable cause for a search warrant for his apartment for further evidence … Continue reading

Posted in DNA, Emergency / exigency, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on MA: There were objectively PC and exigency for a warrantless search of def’s hands for DNA from a homicide

CA2: Even if SW was unlawful, def’s statement was attenuated

Even if the search warrant was unlawful for failure to specify the apartment to be searched, defendant’s statement was an intervening independent act of free will in disclosing the location of a CD of child pornography. The exclusionary rule would … Continue reading

Posted in Attenuation, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on CA2: Even if SW was unlawful, def’s statement was attenuated

D.Kan.: Exclusionary rule inapplicable to revo of federal supervised release

The exclusionary rule does not apply to searches leading to revocation of federal supervised release. United States v. Tran, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32836 (D. Kan. Mar. 1, 2019). “Defendant speculates, based on information in a search warrant application, that … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on D.Kan.: Exclusionary rule inapplicable to revo of federal supervised release

N.D.Cal.: Despite 2011 violations of statute on real-time CSLI and trap and trace orders, GFE requires no suppression for isolated negligence

Seven years before Carpenter, Salinas CA police violated statute in getting real-time CSLI and a trap and trace order to find defendant after a robbery. The statutory violation was negligence, but it was isolated and not systemic, and the other … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception | Comments Off on N.D.Cal.: Despite 2011 violations of statute on real-time CSLI and trap and trace orders, GFE requires no suppression for isolated negligence

CA9: Injunctive relief against records surreptitiously collected is a possible remedy for a 4A violation

In a wide ranging case against the FBI for conducting covert surveillance in a mosque and targeting Muslims allegedly solely based on their religion, the court holds that injunctive relief to expunge what was seized is a possible remedy for … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on CA9: Injunctive relief against records surreptitiously collected is a possible remedy for a 4A violation

CA7: State law violation for tracking warrant not a 4A violation

Defendant was tracked by a state issued tracking warrant. A state imposed limitation on the tracking warrant was arguably violated, but that doesn’t by any means mean that the Fourth Amendment was violated when his case was brought in federal … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonableness | Comments Off on CA7: State law violation for tracking warrant not a 4A violation

A.F.Ct.Crim.App.: Forced catherization violated MRE 312(f) and exclusionary rule applied

Appellant was a JAG officer under medical treatment taking drugs, but those drugs interacted with alcohol and led to a DUI and a charge of being drunk on duty. A blood sample was obtained by medical personnel. Her urine, however, … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Military searches | Comments Off on A.F.Ct.Crim.App.: Forced catherization violated MRE 312(f) and exclusionary rule applied