Category Archives: Exclusionary rule

DE holds that exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to probation revocations

The exclusionary rule does not apply to probation revocation proceedings. No federal case holds to the contrary. Thompson v. State, 2018 Del. LEXIS 346 (July 24, 2018). The city’s administrative warrants for petitioner’s dilapidated buildings were properly issued. By statute, … Continue reading

Posted in Administrative search, Exclusionary rule, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on DE holds that exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to probation revocations

D.Nev.: While def’s firearm was suppressed, it can come in by impeachment if he opens the door at trial

Defendant’s firearm was previously suppressed. If at trial he opens the door to the gun, it can be referred to by proper impeachment. United States v. Casarez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112536 (D. Nev. July 6, 2018). Defendant was granted … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on D.Nev.: While def’s firearm was suppressed, it can come in by impeachment if he opens the door at trial

WI: SI to arrest warrant issued in error but relied on in good faith would not be suppressed

Police were dispatched to a 911 call, and, on the way, discovered an arrest warrant for the subject of the call. By the time they got there, the 911 call was off, but they arrested on the warrant. It turned … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception | Comments Off on WI: SI to arrest warrant issued in error but relied on in good faith would not be suppressed

D.Ore.: Even if ptf’s 4A violated in stop at Portland airport, exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in § 1983 case

“First, even assuming that Flinn had no lawful basis to stop and talk to Plaintiff in the first place, Plaintiff’s argument is not viable in a § 1983 claim. In a 2016 Ninth Circuit case, the court noted that the … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on D.Ore.: Even if ptf’s 4A violated in stop at Portland airport, exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in § 1983 case

NY3: No exigency justified this entry; exclusionary rule applies in NY probation revo proceedings

There was no emergency basis for entry into defendant’s apartment, a probationer. The police understood that another person might be there who they were curious about. Still, there was no justification for the warrantless entry with gun drawn at midnight. … Continue reading

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Exclusionary rule, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on NY3: No exigency justified this entry; exclusionary rule applies in NY probation revo proceedings

CA8: Prior unlawful search of bag on bus was corrected by good faith actions of officer and exclusionary rule wouldn’t be applied

A Tornado bus was stopped in Arkansas, and the Arkansas State Trooper was looking for unmarked bags that could be considered abandoned because unmarked bags on Tornado buses were being used to ferry drugs. While searching the bag, the officer … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception | Comments Off on CA8: Prior unlawful search of bag on bus was corrected by good faith actions of officer and exclusionary rule wouldn’t be applied

N.D.Cal.: Def’s parole search on erroneous dispatch report def was on parole means no exclusion under Herring

Defendant was stopped for a traffic offense, and dispatch said he was on parole which meant he was subject to search. He wasn’t on parole, but the officer’s good faith reliance on the dispatch report under Herring means no suppression. … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on N.D.Cal.: Def’s parole search on erroneous dispatch report def was on parole means no exclusion under Herring

D.Mont.: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to sentencing

“Rankin claimed counsel should have sought to suppress some of the evidence used at sentencing, but the exclusionary rule does not apply at sentencing.” United States v. Rankin, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100129 (D. Mont. June 15, 2018). The affidavit … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Probable cause | Comments Off on D.Mont.: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to sentencing

N.D.Ill.: No constitutional requirement that police car recording equipment be used

“Defendant objects to the magistrate judge’s probable cause determination asserting that ‘defendant believes’ that where a police car is equipped with video recording equipment the officer should be required to use it and that his testimony alone should not be … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on N.D.Ill.: No constitutional requirement that police car recording equipment be used

VA: Stop outside officer’s jurisdiction not subject to suppression

Defendant was seen speeding by a VMI police officer who followed him. The actual stop was off the campus. There was probable cause for the stop and arrest, and, even if the officer was outside his jurisdiction, suppression is not … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on VA: Stop outside officer’s jurisdiction not subject to suppression

W.D.Ky.: Backup officer to traffic stop immediately used drug dog, and that wasn’t unreasonable

Defendants’ failure to stop at stop signs was justification for the stop. A backup officer with a drug dog did a dog sniff around the car while the basic stuff of the traffic stop was being done. This did not … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on W.D.Ky.: Backup officer to traffic stop immediately used drug dog, and that wasn’t unreasonable

N.D.Ga.: No suppression remedy for alleged HIPAA violation by police

“Moreover, although Defendant initially responded to Kinser’s request for consent by stating, ‘You’re going to do what you’re going to do’ (Tr. 45), Kinser did not then begin searching his car. Instead, Kinser again asked for Defendant’s consent (id.), thus … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: No suppression remedy for alleged HIPAA violation by police