Category Archives: Exclusionary rule

Texas finally adopts the Davis good faith exception to its statutory exclusionary rule

Texas finally adopts the Davis good faith exception to its statutory exclusionary rule to a pre-Jardines dog sniff in a wide ranging and scholarly opinion surveying all the federal circuits on Davis and attenuation. McClintock v. State, 2017 Tex. Crim. … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception | Comments Off

S.D.W.Va.: Flagrant violation of 4A with warrantless GPS on def’s car doesn’t get suppressed because of def’s lack of standing at time of search

The police flagrantly violated the Fourth Amendment by placing a GPS device on a car without a warrant. Defendant was the target, but he’d sold and relinquished control of the car to another days later by the time of the … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Standing | Comments Off

D.Conn.: Protective weapons search of nightstand for a weapon invalid where def removed from house in handcuffs

The court does not believe an officer who claimed to have seen crack cocaine in a black opaque drawstring bag that was closed in the first search of his person. The court also does not believe that a much later … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Protective sweep | Comments Off

AZ: Non-consensual blood draw DUI provision is unconstitutional as applied, but the Davis GFE applies

Non-consensual blood draw DUI provision is unconstitutional as applied, but the Davis good faith exception applies here. Defendant was airlifted to a Nevada hospital for the blood draw. The trial court didn’t make findings on whether Nevada or Arizona law … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing, Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off

D.Conn.: Shots fired call is not per se exigency; totality standard must apply

A shots fired call is not carte blanche exigency–the totality of circumstances must still be examined. Here, the court finds no exigency for the warrantless entry or protective sweep and that the exclusionary rule should be applied. The costs aren’t … Continue reading

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Exclusionary rule, Protective sweep | Comments Off

ND: Exclusionary rule does not apply to civil administrative drivers license suspensions

The exclusionary rule does not apply to civil administrative drivers license suspensions. Beylund v. Levi, 2017 ND 30, 2017 N.D. LEXIS 30 (Feb. 16, 2017):

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off

AR: Knock-and-announce applies to parole searches, but Hudson adopted and exclusionary rule doesn’t apply

The knock-and-announce rule applies to parole searches, and violation of the rule is a substantial violation of the Fourth Amendment and the state constitution. The court adopts Hudson, however, and finds that the exclusionary rule should not be applied. Lane … Continue reading

Posted in Attenuation, Exclusionary rule, Knock and announce, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off

CA11: First offender DNA sample that should have been destroyed under state law but wasn’t could be used in federal prosecution

Under Georgia law, a DNA sample from a first offender should be expunged from the system when he completes his probation or sentence. This one wasn’t. Whatever the statute says, it doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Hinton, … Continue reading

Posted in DNA, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off

CA8: Def’s statement was attenuated from the false statement that led to the SW being issued

An untrue statement in an affidavit for search warrant was attenuated from defendant’s later confession. All four factors of the attenuation doctrine weighed in favor of not suppressing statements defendant made during his interview with the agent. The causal connection … Continue reading

Posted in Attenuation, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off

D.N.M.: Def’s conditional plea and slight chance of success on appeal aren’t enough to avoid detention at plea

Defendant litigated a motion to suppress and lost, and then he entered a conditional plea. Because his sentencing range is 10 years or more, he is ordered into custody. The court is not convinced there is a debatable issue for … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off