Category Archives: Exclusionary rule

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

Cal.1: Def’s false name was intended to avoid probation search condition; he’s estopped to argue exclusionary rule

“We hold that when a probationer gives a false name to a police officer, and a record check of that name fails to reveal that the probationer is in fact subject to a search condition, the probationer is estopped from … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on Cal.1: Def’s false name was intended to avoid probation search condition; he’s estopped to argue exclusionary rule

WSJ: When Illegally Obtained Evidence Can Be Used Against You

WSJ: When Illegally Obtained Evidence Can Be Used Against You by Joe Palazzolo: The digital age has accelerated carve-outs to a concept that most Americans take for granted: that evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution can’t be used against … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on WSJ: When Illegally Obtained Evidence Can Be Used Against You

DE: Exclusionary rule does not apply in probation revocation proceedings

Deciding an issue of first impression in the state, the court concludes that the exclusionary rule does not apply in probation revocation proceedings. Surveying law from other states, some recognize a bad faith exception for probation searches, but this case … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Franks doctrine, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on DE: Exclusionary rule does not apply in probation revocation proceedings

KS: Waiting to run criminal history check unreasonably extended stop; drug dog used during that time

The stop was unreasonably extended by waiting several minutes to run a criminal history which was not for safety reasons. While the criminal history check was being run, a drug dog was run around the car. The exclusionary rule applies … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion, Reasonableness | Comments Off on KS: Waiting to run criminal history check unreasonably extended stop; drug dog used during that time

C.D.Ill.: Exclusionary rule does not apply to revocation of supervised release

The exclusionary rule does not apply to revocation of supervised release. United States v. Phillips, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25603 (C.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 2018). Defendant’s 2255 Fourth Amendment IAC claim wasn’t timely: “Petitioner’s motion to vacate was not filed … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on C.D.Ill.: Exclusionary rule does not apply to revocation of supervised release