Category Archives: Exclusionary rule

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

CA1: Routine booking fingerprints even in an unlawful arrest not subject to exclusionary rule and are reasonable

Routine taking of booking fingerprints held not unreasonable, even if the arrest turned out to be unlawful. The district court held that they were admissible by inevitable discovery because the officers would have found that defendant was here unlawfully. The … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on CA1: Routine booking fingerprints even in an unlawful arrest not subject to exclusionary rule and are reasonable

MO: Exclusionary rule inapplicable in civil and administrative proceedings

The exclusionary rule does not apply in civil or administrative proceedings. Mo. Landowners Alliance v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 2019 Mo. App. LEXIS 1975 (Dec. 17, 2019). There was reasonable suspicion to conduct a weapons search of defendant’s vehicle. The stop … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on MO: Exclusionary rule inapplicable in civil and administrative proceedings

Cal.: Privately recorded conversation in violation of state law admissible in a criminal case under 1982’s Proposition 8

A private party recorded a telephone call with defendant admitting a criminal sex act. Proposition 8 on “Truth in Evidence” adopted by voters in 1982 made the exclusionary rule follow the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. The legislature amended it by … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Private search | Comments Off on Cal.: Privately recorded conversation in violation of state law admissible in a criminal case under 1982’s Proposition 8

DC: Telling def to put his hands on the wall for a patdown was a seizure and wasn’t consensual

Telling defendant to put his hands against the wall and assume the position for a patdown was a seizure, and here it was without probable cause. It was not consensual. Dozier v. United States, 2019 D.C. App. LEXIS 495 (Dec. … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Seizure, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on DC: Telling def to put his hands on the wall for a patdown was a seizure and wasn’t consensual

W.D.N.C.: Guilty plea waived 4A IAC claim

“The knowing and voluntary guilty plea waived all alleged ineffective assistance of counsel which preceded it, including counsel’s alleged deficiencies with regards to Fourth Amendment issues.” Allen v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205762 (W.D. N.C. Nov. 26, 2019). … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Ineffective assistance, Seizure | Comments Off on W.D.N.C.: Guilty plea waived 4A IAC claim

WV: Exclusionary rule does not apply in civil cases

DHHR obtained information about the parents from an alleged illegal stop. The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in civil cases. In re N.R., 2019 W. Va. LEXIS 524 (Nov. 7, 2019). A game warden approached plaintiff sitting in his truck in … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on WV: Exclusionary rule does not apply in civil cases

W.D.La.: Dismissal of indictment is not remedy for DEA allegedly violating its policy manual, even if it did

Defendant’s general allegation that the DEA officers violated their own policy manual isn’t specific and doesn’t even rise to the level of dismissal of the indictment, which is what he alleges. “Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that violations of … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on W.D.La.: Dismissal of indictment is not remedy for DEA allegedly violating its policy manual, even if it did

N.D.Cal.: Search of car violated Rodriguez and product of that search led to suppression of SW for house

Defendant’s stop was unreasonably prolonged and violated Rodriguez. The product of that search was used to get a search warrant for the house. The search of the house is suppressed, too. United States v. Maffei, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177755 … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Seizure | Comments Off on N.D.Cal.: Search of car violated Rodriguez and product of that search led to suppression of SW for house

Cal.2: The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in PC determations for arrest; that’s to be litigated later

At a probable cause determination, the legality of the arrest for an attempt at applying the exclusionary rule isn’t appropriately litigated. That comes after the charges land in Superior Court. Barajas v. Appellate Div. of the Superior Court, 2019 Cal. … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on Cal.2: The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in PC determations for arrest; that’s to be litigated later

KS applies Krull for GFE to statutory DUI advice of rights later held unconstitutional

The officer gave advice of DUI rights as required by state law later held unconstitutional. Under Illinois v. Krull, the court finds the officer acted in good faith, and the BAC test is not suppressed. State v. Perkins, 2019 Kan. … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception | Comments Off on KS applies Krull for GFE to statutory DUI advice of rights later held unconstitutional

E.D.N.Y.: Given a 4A violation for lack of particularity, subjective good faith isn’t good enough for GFE

There was a failure of particularity in this document search warrant, which the government effectively concedes, and it falls back to the good faith exception to save it. The court concludes, however, in a long analysis, that the deterrent benefits … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception, Particularity | Comments Off on E.D.N.Y.: Given a 4A violation for lack of particularity, subjective good faith isn’t good enough for GFE

D.V.I.: Failure to include limiting attachments at time of execution of SW was 4A violation, but mere oversight and exclusionary rule not applied

The search warrant had the wrong address, but there were attachments to it when presented to the USMJ which gave the correct address. In addition, the affiant was familiar with the place to be searched, and he went along on … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Particularity | Comments Off on D.V.I.: Failure to include limiting attachments at time of execution of SW was 4A violation, but mere oversight and exclusionary rule not applied

FL4: Mistakenly placed GPS on probationer isn’t suppressed under Heien and Herring

When defendant started probation, a GPS monitor was placed on him without court order by a probation employee that just assumed it was required. It wasn’t. It was an apparent violation of the Fourth Amendment, but it’s within the Heien … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, GPS / Tracking Data | Comments Off on FL4: Mistakenly placed GPS on probationer isn’t suppressed under Heien and Herring

NY4: Exclusionary rule wouldn’t be applied to probation search during a time of uncertainty in the law where law now settled; no deterrence possible

The exclusionary rule would not be applied to what turned out to be an illegal probation search at a time when the law was unclear. There is no deterrent effect to be gained by applying the exclusionary rule when other … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Probation / Parole search, Warrant execution | Comments Off on NY4: Exclusionary rule wouldn’t be applied to probation search during a time of uncertainty in the law where law now settled; no deterrence possible

CA3: Petrs stated enough to get an immigration hearing on application of exclusionary rule to race-based stop as egregious violation of 4A

The petitioners in an immigration proceeding alleged a race based stop and detention by state officers stated enough to get a hearing on whether this was an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment. Yoc-Us v. AG United States, 2019 U.S. … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Pretext | Comments Off on CA3: Petrs stated enough to get an immigration hearing on application of exclusionary rule to race-based stop as egregious violation of 4A

S.D.W.Va.: Computer SW for drugs led to healthcare fraud evidence; second SW needed; exclusionary rule should apply to deter

The government had a search warrant of ESI for drugs. When the search warrant was executed, they found evidence of healthcare billing fraud. A second search warrant was required, citing the government’s own search manual [noted and linked on the … Continue reading

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception, Overseizure | Comments Off on S.D.W.Va.: Computer SW for drugs led to healthcare fraud evidence; second SW needed; exclusionary rule should apply to deter

N.D.Ill.: The exclusionary rule does not apply in a § 1983 suit against police officers

The exclusionary rule does not apply in a § 1983 suit against police officers. Mayo v. Lasalle County, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117667 (N.D. Ill. July 15, 2019).* The court concludes defendant didn’t just drop his backpack when confronted by … Continue reading

Posted in Abandonment, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on N.D.Ill.: The exclusionary rule does not apply in a § 1983 suit against police officers