Category Archives: Exclusionary rule

D.Me.: Settled law at the time means exclusionary rule not applied, even if the law was later changing

Officers relied on settled law in this circuit that the search incident was valid. Maybe it wouldn’t be later, but it was at the time. The exclusionary rule should not be applied under Davis. “Given the similarity of these two … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception, Standards of review | Comments Off on D.Me.: Settled law at the time means exclusionary rule not applied, even if the law was later changing

AF: Despite search authorization not permitting this search and GFE not applying, exclusionary rule should not apply; no deterrence

The search authorization for this service member’s cell phone was overbroad and failed to include text messages which were at issue. This failed Leon’s good faith exception: “We disagree, and find the fourth Leon exception clearly applies in this case—that … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception, Overseizure, Scope of search | Comments Off on AF: Despite search authorization not permitting this search and GFE not applying, exclusionary rule should not apply; no deterrence

N.-M.: In applying cost-benefits analysis of exclusionary rule, this was more than mere negligence and exclusion was necessary

In a military prosecution for adultery, the military judge found the search of defendant’s cell phone unreasonable and a violation of the Fourth Amendment but refused to suppress in its cost-benefits analysis. The court of appeals disagreed and found the … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on N.-M.: In applying cost-benefits analysis of exclusionary rule, this was more than mere negligence and exclusion was necessary

D.Nev.: Traffic stop devolving into investigation of violation of parole conditions was without RS

“The Court finds that Chronister unlawfully prolonged the traffic stop by pursuing an investigation into whether or not Lewis was in violation of his parole conditions.” “The Court finds that Chronister did not believe at the time of the traffic … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception, Inevitable discovery, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.Nev.: Traffic stop devolving into investigation of violation of parole conditions was without RS

CA4: Exclusionary rule does not apply to violations of Posse Comitatus Act

An investigation by the DoD Inspector General is an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act. Besides, a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act is not subject to the exclusionary rule. United States v. Vaxima, Inc., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 5315 … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Exclusionary rule, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on CA4: Exclusionary rule does not apply to violations of Posse Comitatus Act

AL adopts new crime exception to exclusionary rule

When being arrested, defendant pulled away from officers in his room and dove for his bed and reached under a pillow. Officers thought he was going for a gun, and a melee ensued. He was charged with assault and resisting … Continue reading

Posted in Attenuation, Exclusionary rule, Independent source | Comments Off on AL adopts new crime exception to exclusionary rule

DC: Even if def was illegally arrested, his identification is not suppressed

Even if defendant was illegally arrested, his identification is not suppressed. Hood v. United States, 2022 D.C. App. LEXIS 57 (Feb. 10, 2022):

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on DC: Even if def was illegally arrested, his identification is not suppressed

CA3: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to sentencing unless enhancing sentence was reason for the search

The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to sentencing factors unless the illegal search was intended to enhance the sentence. United States v. Torres, 926 F.2d 321 (3d Cir. 1991). “[W]e refused to follow Verdugo in Torres because the facts in Torres … Continue reading

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on CA3: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to sentencing unless enhancing sentence was reason for the search

MS: The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in civil tort cases for wrongful conviction

“Sedric Sutton seeks compensation under Mississippi Code Sections 11-44-1 to -15 (Rev. 2019), Compensation to Victims of Wrongful Conviction and Imprisonment, after his conviction of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute was vacated by this Court.” The … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on MS: The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in civil tort cases for wrongful conviction

TX: Exclusionary rule is statutory and harmless error analysis required

The Texas exclusionary rule is statutory and not a constitutional remedy since 1922. Thus, harmless error analysis is required, and the case remanded for that. Holder v. State, 2022 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 72 (Feb. 2, 2022). “Accordingly, under the … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Plain view, feel, smell, Probation / Parole search, Seizure | Comments Off on TX: Exclusionary rule is statutory and harmless error analysis required

CA1: DoJ MMJ appropriations rider does not implicate the exclusionary rule

The DoJ appropriations rider* that limits spending any federal funds of medical marijuana-type cases does not permit the court of appeals enjoining the prosecution by interlocutory appeal. That does not implicate the grand jury’s power to consider the case, nor … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on CA1: DoJ MMJ appropriations rider does not implicate the exclusionary rule

CA11: FBI’s negligence in taking six months to search def’s truck and computers did not require suppression

“Bruce Nicholson, an Alabama man convicted of federal child sex crimes and sentenced to life in prison, challenges his conviction on direct appeal. The main question in this criminal appeal is, as it often is, whether a criminal should ‘go … Continue reading

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Exclusionary rule, Informant hearsay, Social media warrants | Comments Off on CA11: FBI’s negligence in taking six months to search def’s truck and computers did not require suppression

CA1: Def preserved Rodriguez argument without citing it

Defendant preserved his Rodriguez argument by stating that the stop was continued without reasonable suspicion but not citing the case. Nevertheless, he loses on the merits. United States v. Reyes, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 1417 (1st Cir. Jan. 19, 2022). … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Exclusionary rule, Ineffective assistance, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA1: Def preserved Rodriguez argument without citing it

CA7: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in civil cases

Plaintiff was arrested for possession of brass knuckles. The state court suppressed, so the state’s attorney nolle prossed. He sued under 1983. There was probable cause to arrest, and the exclusionary rule [even if the state court was right, which … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on CA7: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in civil cases

W.D.Ky.: Arrest warrant doesn’t require executing officer to check into PC for it

If there is an arrest warrant, the executing officer doesn’t have to look behind it to determine its validity. Other alleged probable cause for defendant’s stop is immaterial. United States v. Cox, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7551 (W.D.Ky. Jan. 14, … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Exclusionary rule, Issue preclusion, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on W.D.Ky.: Arrest warrant doesn’t require executing officer to check into PC for it

MT: Probation search was justified; its overall reasonableness didn’t warrant suppression here

There was reasonable suspicion for the probation search of defendant’s house based on his wife’s report that he was using meth again. The supervisory PO authorized a warrantless entry if necessary. The record is limited as to the reasonableness of … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on MT: Probation search was justified; its overall reasonableness didn’t warrant suppression here

CA2: Def’s possession of multiple cell phones and drugs packaged for street sale created inference more in hotel room

The search of defendant’s person produced multiple cell phones and drugs packaged for street-level sale. There was a fair probability there would be more in his hotel room since drug dealers usually have a base of operations. United States v. … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Informant hearsay, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA2: Def’s possession of multiple cell phones and drugs packaged for street sale created inference more in hotel room

IL: Def did not open door to admit suppressed evidence by lying about it

The exception to the exclusionary rule that suppressed evidence can be used for impeachment purposes did not apply to outright perjury about the finding of a gun. Defendant pro se here stated in opening and in cross that the gun … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on IL: Def did not open door to admit suppressed evidence by lying about it

FL1: Alleged statutory violation for seizing alcohol abusers not subject to any exclusionary rule

An officer’s alleged violation of statutory procedures for dealing with alcohol abusers they encounter is not subject to an exclusionary rule. Nothing in the statute even suggests it. Jones v. State, 2021 Fla. App. LEXIS 15097 (Fla. 1st DCA Nov. … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Issue preclusion, Probable cause, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on FL1: Alleged statutory violation for seizing alcohol abusers not subject to any exclusionary rule

N.D.Ohio: Even suppressed evidence can sometimes be used in rebuttal if the door is opened

The government says that it is not going to use evidence from the search of defendant, but it reserves its ability to attempt to use it in rebuttal, if defendant opens the door. The possibility of a superseding indictment to … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on N.D.Ohio: Even suppressed evidence can sometimes be used in rebuttal if the door is opened