Category Archives: Exclusionary rule

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

D.Kan.: Arrest for possession of cash wasn’t even reasonably valid under state law; exclusionary rule applies in federal court

Defendant was stopped, and the officer gave a warning. He continued asking questions which led to a consent search finding cash. The officer then arrested defendants for possession of the proceeds of a drug transaction. Only there were no probable … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Informant hearsay, Probable cause | Comments Off on D.Kan.: Arrest for possession of cash wasn’t even reasonably valid under state law; exclusionary rule applies in federal court

OH2: Officer’s good faith mistake, if it was one, that def possessed a concealed weapon (a long sword), bars application of the exclusionary rule [court erroneously shifts burden]

Police got a call about a man wielding a sword, and they stopped defendant. There was probable cause for him possessing a concealed long sword [how?]. Even if the officer was wrong, it wasn’t really wrong. “Short contends that Officer … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception | Comments Off on OH2: Officer’s good faith mistake, if it was one, that def possessed a concealed weapon (a long sword), bars application of the exclusionary rule [court erroneously shifts burden]

KS: Warning officers about self-incrimination at suppression hearing deterrent enough; no exclusion

Kansas police officers can go outside their jurisdiction when requested to do so. Kansas statute implies an exclusionary remedy. Here, the officers appear to have violated the statute, but the district court warned the officers against self-incrimination at the hearing … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipatory warrant, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on KS: Warning officers about self-incrimination at suppression hearing deterrent enough; no exclusion