Category Archives: Exclusionary rule

CA4: Unlawfully placing GPS on def’s car was flagrant 4A violation; no attenuation found

The government unlawfully placed a GPS device on defendant’s car and two days later stopped him. It argued in the district court a lack of standing, which prevailed there, and then conceded they were wrong on appeal. The constitutional violation … Continue reading

Posted in Attenuation, Exclusionary rule, GPS / Tracking Data | Comments Off on CA4: Unlawfully placing GPS on def’s car was flagrant 4A violation; no attenuation found

CA10: 17 hour seizure of def’s home while investigating wife’s OD was unreasonable; consent was product of the illegal seizure; exclusion required

Defendant’s wife had a seizure and stopped breathing at 5 am. He called 911. The police secured the home and denied him access. They obtained alleged consent after a few hours. They didn’t get a search warrant until 10 pm … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception, Seizure | Comments Off on CA10: 17 hour seizure of def’s home while investigating wife’s OD was unreasonable; consent was product of the illegal seizure; exclusion required

N.D.Ga.: Even though initial entry may have been unlawful, reentry at def’s request to get cell phone to call lawyer was by consent and permitted protective sweep

Defendant was arrested in what was alleged to be an unlawful entry. After he was out, he requested his cell phone so he could call a lawyer. Going back in with him and the protective sweep with it was by … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Exclusionary rule, Independent source, Protective sweep | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: Even though initial entry may have been unlawful, reentry at def’s request to get cell phone to call lawyer was by consent and permitted protective sweep

AZ: Exclusion not a remedy for violation of implied consent law

Exclusion of evidence for violation of the implied consent statute is not provided for by the statute nor required by the constitution. Soza v. Marner, 2018 Ariz. App. LEXIS 157 (Oct. 2, 2018):

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on AZ: Exclusion not a remedy for violation of implied consent law

CO: Def’s DNA was unlawfully collected in a juvenile proceeding and entered into CODIS, and the exclusionary rule is applied

Defendant’s DNA was unlawfully collected in a juvenile proceeding that was ultimately dismissed with deferral. It wasn’t removed from CODIS, and defendant was later linked to a carjacking from his DNA. The exclusionary rule is applied because the first search … Continue reading

Posted in DNA, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on CO: Def’s DNA was unlawfully collected in a juvenile proceeding and entered into CODIS, and the exclusionary rule is applied

S.D.N.Y.: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to federal supervised release hearings

The exclusionary rule is not applicable to federal supervised release revocation hearings. United States v. Jones, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162830 (S.D. N.Y. Sep. 24, 2018). The government did, in fact, have a search warrant for defendant’s CSLI, so his … Continue reading

Posted in Cell site location information, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to federal supervised release hearings

MA: Violation of a state regulation leading to identifying def juvenile doesn’t warrant suppression

Alleged violation of a state regulation that led to defendant juvenile’s identity didn’t warrant suppression. Suppression would require the statute align with a constitutional requirement. Moreover, there was no police misconduct; indeed, the police did good work here in locating … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on MA: Violation of a state regulation leading to identifying def juvenile doesn’t warrant suppression

W.D.N.Y.: Violation of state law on informant hearsay [erroneously] imported into federal prosecution

The court finds the search warrant issued without probable cause as to the informant hearsay under New York law, and a hearing will be scheduled to determine whether to exclude. [Considering that state law violations generally have no affect on … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on W.D.N.Y.: Violation of state law on informant hearsay [erroneously] imported into federal prosecution

CA11: Apparent consent for 5:30 am entry defeats “egregious” 4A violation for exclusion in immigration removal

Petitioner’s declaration did not make a prima facie case of an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment to preclude evidence in his removal proceeding. The entry was at 5:30 am, but there was also evidence of consent to the entry. … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Forfeiture, Immigration arrests | Comments Off on CA11: Apparent consent for 5:30 am entry defeats “egregious” 4A violation for exclusion in immigration removal

WA: Even if CP warrant was overbroad (it’s not), severability makes seizure valid

One month old information received from Microsoft to NCMEC was not stale. (That is settled everywhere.) The search warrant was not too vague, and, even it if was, the court’s ability to sever invalid parts makes this search valid. State … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Overbreadth, Staleness | Comments Off on WA: Even if CP warrant was overbroad (it’s not), severability makes seizure valid

N.D.Ga.: Alleged isolated violation of Posse Comitatus Act doesn’t require exclusion

Alleged isolated violation of Posse Comitatus Act doesn’t require exclusion. McGill v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142130 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 22, 2018). Trash cans were left at the street for collection of the contents, so there was no … Continue reading

Posted in Community caretaking function, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: Alleged isolated violation of Posse Comitatus Act doesn’t require exclusion

VA, concurring: State statute may provide exclusion where 4A doesn’t

The prior appeal was law of the case on application of exigent circumstances to justify the search. Campbell v. State, 294 Va. 486, 807 S.E.2d 735 (2017). On remand, defendant claimed another version of how the search was invalid because, … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on VA, concurring: State statute may provide exclusion where 4A doesn’t