Category Archives: Exclusionary rule

D.Minn.: Late night stop, no DL, digital scale on floor is RS

This late night stop was reasonably extended because the driver didn’t have a DL on him and there appeared to be a digital scale on the floor. United States v. Henry, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115939 (D. Minn. May 20, … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.Minn.: Late night stop, no DL, digital scale on floor is RS

CA5: Reasonable mistaken identification made stop reasonable

“In any event, even if it is assumed arguendo that an attempted seizure could in fact trigger the Fourth Amendment, Ferguson has failed to show that the attempt to detain him for an investigatory Terry stop was not supported by … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA5: Reasonable mistaken identification made stop reasonable

FL1: FDLE’s failure to remove DNA after acquittal in prior case wasn’t a separate 4A violation nor was it subject to the exclusionary rule

FDLE’s failure to remove defendant’s DNA from the state CODIS database after his acquittal in a prior case wasn’t a Fourth Amendment violation nor subject to the exclusionary rule to keep it from being used in this case. The evidence … Continue reading

Posted in DNA, Exclusionary rule, Seizure | Comments Off on FL1: FDLE’s failure to remove DNA after acquittal in prior case wasn’t a separate 4A violation nor was it subject to the exclusionary rule

M.D.Fla.: Exclusionary rule applies to overseizure of tracking information, but blanket suppression not required

There was probable cause for issuance of historical cell phone tracking information and connecting defendant to the phone. The affidavit, however, only sought information for one day, but the warrant covered seven days. The overseizure is suppressed because the exclusionary … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Overseizure | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: Exclusionary rule applies to overseizure of tracking information, but blanket suppression not required

CA9: Not clearly established that County of Riverside violation warrants suppression

It was not clearly established that a County of Riverside violation of allegedly delaying a probable cause determination to gather more evidence was subject to suppression. Even Riverside doesn’t say that it is. Thus, the district court’s determination counsel wasn’t … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Ineffective assistance | Comments Off on CA9: Not clearly established that County of Riverside violation warrants suppression

D.N.M.: Vehicle already searched under the automobile exception can be searched again at police station

A vehicle already searched under the automobile exception can be searched again after it is removed to the police lot. United States v. Mazon, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64813 (D. N.M. Apr. 13, 2020). The Texas trial court didn’t err … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on D.N.M.: Vehicle already searched under the automobile exception can be searched again at police station

E.D.Tex.: Searching a car more than once isn’t a 4A violation

“The fact that Detective Nance searched portions of the vehicle more than once did not violate the Fourth Amendment.” Mendoza v. United States, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68469 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2020). The exclusionary rule does not apply in … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Search | Comments Off on E.D.Tex.: Searching a car more than once isn’t a 4A violation

D.Ariz.: Overseizure of emails by SW didn’t require suppression of all; GFE also applies

This search warrant was issued in a SSA fraud case alleging a decade of false claims. The search warrant was sufficiently particular and not overbroad. The fact the period of the alleged offense was through January 2014 did not prohibit … Continue reading

Posted in E-mail, Exclusionary rule, Nexus, Overseizure | Comments Off on D.Ariz.: Overseizure of emails by SW didn’t require suppression of all; GFE also applies

AZ: Successfully controverting PC for SW requires return of copies of digital evidence

Defendant in a criminal case was suspected of Arizona wildlife offenses, and the state procured a search warrant. He successful controverted the warrant for lack of probable cause under state statute. Digital copies of evidence were kept by the state. … Continue reading

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Exclusionary rule, Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters | Comments Off on AZ: Successfully controverting PC for SW requires return of copies of digital evidence

CA2: Even assuming this supervised release search lacked RS, there were facts supporting it and the exclusionary rule will not be applied

Even if the supervised release search here was without reasonable suspicion, the purposes of the exclusionary rule aren’t served. “Even assuming [Officer] Dyckman acted unreasonably in failing to conduct further investigation before executing the search, this is not the kind … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on CA2: Even assuming this supervised release search lacked RS, there were facts supporting it and the exclusionary rule will not be applied

D.P.R.: Search of room six hours before SW issued (not to mention lies about it) leads to suppression

The search of defendant’s room was six hours before the search warrant was issued. It was an investigative search and not a protective sweep. The officer admitted that he was looking for something to put in the affidavit for the … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on D.P.R.: Search of room six hours before SW issued (not to mention lies about it) leads to suppression

S.D.Cal.: USMC spotter working with CBP didn’t violate Posse Comitatus Act

A US Marine working the border spotted a potential illegal crossing through a scope and reported it to the Border Patrol who made the stop and arrest. The Posse Comitatus Act as interpreted by the Ninth Circuit applies to the … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on S.D.Cal.: USMC spotter working with CBP didn’t violate Posse Comitatus Act

ME: Statute requiring blood draw in fatal accident without PC violates 4A; but GFE applied here

Maine’s statute that requires a blood draw of the driver in a fatal or near fatal accident without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment. Thus, the 2007 case upholding the statute is overruled. It cannot be categorized under the special … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Exclusionary rule, Special needs | Comments Off on ME: Statute requiring blood draw in fatal accident without PC violates 4A; but GFE applied here

D.Me.: State bail condition that def submit to searches permitted this search

Defendant’s state court bail condition included that he submit to reasonable searches of his person and place at anytime. There’s no showing that he didn’t understand the condition. United States v. Kissh, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3767 (D. Me. Jan. … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonableness | Comments Off on D.Me.: State bail condition that def submit to searches permitted this search

D.Neb.: Handcuffing on RS to assure safety and maintain the status quo reasonable and not a de facto arrest

Handcuffing a person on reasonable suspicion just to protect the officer’s safety and maintain the status quo is not unreasonable. United States v. Mayfield, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 520 (D. Neb. Jan. 3, 2020). While the exclusionary rule can apply … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Forfeiture, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.Neb.: Handcuffing on RS to assure safety and maintain the status quo reasonable and not a de facto arrest

FL2: Herring permits one police mistake for good faith, but not two

The officer gave a wrong name to police communications, and then communications gave a wrong answer back. Two mistakes was too much for Herring, and the exclusionary rule is applied. One mistake may be attenuation; two is not. State v. … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on FL2: Herring permits one police mistake for good faith, but not two