Category Archives: Exclusionary rule

D.S.C.: Court is “troubled” by methods of search, but exclusion isn’t remedy

Defendant’s claim there wasn’t any search warrant and that he wasn’t shown one is rejected. He came out of the house with his hands up and empty, and an officer is shown on bodycam handing him a paper and him … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Scope of search | Comments Off on D.S.C.: Court is “troubled” by methods of search, but exclusion isn’t remedy

W.D.Ky.: Clerical error in filestamp of SW return not prejudicial error

Relying on a file mark stamp on a search warrant return that was a year and a few days earlier, defendant claims the issuing judge and officers conspired to back date everything to coverup an illegal search. That’s speculative. The … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Issue preclusion, Plain view, feel, smell | Comments Off on W.D.Ky.: Clerical error in filestamp of SW return not prejudicial error

N.D.Ind.: The exclusionary rule is not the remedy for a high-speed chase to capture defendant

The exclusionary rule is not the remedy for a high-speed chase to capture defendant. United States v. Tyms, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204894 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 10, 2022) Defendant was finally in custody when the police sought to take his … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, DNA, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on N.D.Ind.: The exclusionary rule is not the remedy for a high-speed chase to capture defendant

CA10: Not unreasonable for state court to not apply exclusionary rule in sentencing

Under the unreasonable application standard of 2254, the Utah court did not unreasonably conclude the exclusionary rule would not be applied in the sentencing phase of a criminal trial. Menzies v. Powell, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 30789 (10th Cir. Nov. … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA10: Not unreasonable for state court to not apply exclusionary rule in sentencing

D.D.C.: When stop was extended without RS, def’s assault on officers was not attenuated under Brown

The court finds the stop without reasonable suspicion. It was allegedly justified by paper LPN that didn’t match the car as without reasonable suspicion because the tags weren’t run until after the stop. That and other factors don’t make reasonable … Continue reading

Posted in Attenuation, Exclusionary rule, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on D.D.C.: When stop was extended without RS, def’s assault on officers was not attenuated under Brown

OH1: No exclusionary rule for this alleged statutory violation for lack of notice of a probation search condition

Defendant’s contention the probation department failed to notify him of his search condition was a statutory violation but there is no exclusionary remedy for that. State v. Hayden, 2022-Ohio-3933, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 3721 (1st Dist. Nov. 4, 2022). In … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on OH1: No exclusionary rule for this alleged statutory violation for lack of notice of a probation search condition

D.N.M.: There is no exclusionary rule under Rule 41(g)

An action for return of property under Rule 41(g) is not a motion to suppress and does not invoke any exclusionary rule. Eastman v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188438 (D.N.M. Oct. 14, 2022):

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on D.N.M.: There is no exclusionary rule under Rule 41(g)

OH: Exclusionary rule does not apply to statutory violations, here a parole search

Defendant signed a consent to parole search form, but the statute says it has to be on reasonable grounds. Here, even if the statute was violated, the exclusionary rule applies to constitutional violations, not statutory ones. State v. Campbell, 2022-Ohio-3626, … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception, Ineffective assistance, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on OH: Exclusionary rule does not apply to statutory violations, here a parole search

OH10: Window tint violation justified impoundment and inventory, even though discretionary

Under the inventory policy, the police had the discretion to impound vehicles with excessive window tint, even though they did not apply impoundment uniformly. State v. Hall-Johnson, 2022-Ohio-3512, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 3308 (10th Dist. Sep. 30, 2022). An investigation … Continue reading

Posted in Custody, Exclusionary rule, Inventory, Search | Comments Off on OH10: Window tint violation justified impoundment and inventory, even though discretionary

D.V.I.: 911 call from a child was exigency to go to the back door too

A 911 call from a child on the premises was exigency for going to the door. When the door was open, the police could see through to the backyard that there were marijuana plants growing there. The initial exigency, however, … Continue reading

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.V.I.: 911 call from a child was exigency to go to the back door too

IA: Federal reverse silver platter of anticipatory SW was valid

Defendant was the target of an anticipatory federal search warrant for drugs. The federal government instead let the state prosecute. The Iowa constitution, however, does not permit anticipatory search warrants. Defense counsel didn’t raise the state constitutional issue before trial. … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipatory warrant, Cell phones, Consent, Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on IA: Federal reverse silver platter of anticipatory SW was valid

MA: Def not prejudiced by third party’s response to SW

A third party in possession of Medicaid records was served with a search warrant, and appellant complains of the procedural nature of the third party’s response. [Aside from no standing,] Appellant doesn’t even attempt to show that the exclusionary rule … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Exclusionary rule, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on MA: Def not prejudiced by third party’s response to SW

MI: Even if using a drone to take pictures in zoning dispute violated 4A, exclusionary rule does not apply, and the action below was remedial not punitive

The use of a drone to take pictures by a city contractor in case over a zoning ordinance violation probably did not violate any Fourth Amendment right. But even if it did, the exclusionary rule should not apply in this … Continue reading

Posted in Drones, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on MI: Even if using a drone to take pictures in zoning dispute violated 4A, exclusionary rule does not apply, and the action below was remedial not punitive

W.D.N.C.: Not 4A violation to order def to keep hands visible

It is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment to tell the defendant to keep his hands visible and not reach in the car during a stop. If a person can be ordered out of the car for officer safety, … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonableness, Seizure | Comments Off on W.D.N.C.: Not 4A violation to order def to keep hands visible

S.D.N.Y.: Even illegally seized evidence could be used at sentencing

Defendant’s claim of illegal search is moot for the trial because the government says it’s not using it. It could, however, come up at sentencing. “In United States v. Tejada, the Second Circuit held that ‘[a]bsent a showing that officers … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Inventory, Staleness | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Even illegally seized evidence could be used at sentencing

S.D.Ga.: Exclusionary rule wouldn’t apply to equal protection challenge to stop

A subjective intent (Whren) argument not presented to the USMJ is rejected. Even if the court got to the merits, the exclusionary rule wouldn’t apply to an equal protection challenge. United States v. Lewis, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115137 (S.D. … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonableness | Comments Off on S.D.Ga.: Exclusionary rule wouldn’t apply to equal protection challenge to stop

M.D.Ga.: Dropping cell phone in flight from wrecked car is abandonment

A series of alleged crimes and other actions of the defendant was probable cause to search defendant’s phone found in his car. [There is no nexus to the crimes mentioned in the opinion, so I submit it’s wrong on this … Continue reading

Posted in Abandonment, Exclusionary rule, Knock and talk, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on M.D.Ga.: Dropping cell phone in flight from wrecked car is abandonment

E.D.Pa.: Stop without RS still leads to PC and no exclusion

The stop was without reasonable suspicion, but the court finds the subsequent search incident based on probable cause from the stop reasonable and refuses to apply the exclusionary rule. United States v. Harris, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97002 (E.D.Pa. May … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on E.D.Pa.: Stop without RS still leads to PC and no exclusion

OK: Exclusionary rule applies in civil cases under state constitution

The exclusionary rule applies to Oklahoma City’s effort to enforce a warrantless entry to seize and forfeit birds in apparent distress. Oklahoma applies the exclusionary rule in most civil cases under its state constitutional provision against unreasonable searches. There was … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion, State constitution, Waiver | Comments Off on OK: Exclusionary rule applies in civil cases under state constitution

MI directs its CoA to consider application of exclusionary rule in zoning case

The Michigan Supreme Court remanded Long Lake Twp. v. Maxon, 2021 Mich. App. LEXIS 1819 (Mar. 18, 2021) (posted here) to determine below whether the exclusionary rule should apply in a zoning case. Long Lake Twp. v. Maxon, 2022 Mich. … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Mail and packages, Prison and jail searches, Reasonable suspicion, Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters | Comments Off on MI directs its CoA to consider application of exclusionary rule in zoning case