Category Archives: Exclusionary rule

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

OH5: Employer’s call to police def was probably driving drunk was RS

A Home Depot employee was sent home for working under the influence of alcohol. They used a PBT on him, and he was twice the limit. They tried to arrange a ride for him, but he attempted to drive off … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, Standing | Comments Off on OH5: Employer’s call to police def was probably driving drunk was RS

CA10: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in § 1983 cases

“Plaintiffs maintain that, because Salt Lake City Police violated the Fourth Amendment by unconstitutionally searching and seizing Jerrail Taylor and Adam Thayne, their statements should be excluded in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit. They advance this argument despite the … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on CA10: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in § 1983 cases

OH12: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to violations of statute unless it also violates 4A

A statutory violation is not subject to suppression unless it also shows a violation of the Constitution. “Suppression is a remedy only for a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which in turn, only requires that a search and seizure be … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Seizure | Comments Off on OH12: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to violations of statute unless it also violates 4A

OH1: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in probation revo proceedings

The exclusionary rule does not apply to probation revocation proceedings. (Defendant relies on a 1983 case overruled in 1996.) State v. Richardson, 2021-Ohio-3362, 2021 Ohio App. LEXIS 3302 (1st Dist. Sept. 24, 2021). Defendant’s 2255 reasserts numerous claims, one of … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Plain view, feel, smell, Standards of review | Comments Off on OH1: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in probation revo proceedings

N.D.Cal.: Officer accessing Automated License Plate Reader database not unreasonable search

An Oakland officer’s accessing the local Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) database was not an illegal search nor a violation of the Fourth Amendment. That information helped to provide information to enable police to apply for a GPS tracking warrant … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Issue preclusion, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on N.D.Cal.: Officer accessing Automated License Plate Reader database not unreasonable search

C.D.Ill.: Failure to execute state SW in 10 days doesn’t automatically trigger exclusionary rule

Failure to execute a state search warrant within 10 days (F.R.Crim.P. 41) where state law says 60 days does not automatically trigger the exclusionary rule. The affidavit for the warrant showed probable cause, and the good faith exception also applies. … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Staleness, Warrant execution | Comments Off on C.D.Ill.: Failure to execute state SW in 10 days doesn’t automatically trigger exclusionary rule

N.D.Miss.: No exclusion for knock-and-announce violation

“Engram is simply incorrect that the exclusionary rule may apply when a no-knock warrant application fails to establish justification for a no-knock entry. See United States v. White, 990 F.3d 488, 493 (6th Cir. 2021) (‘Whether this affidavit sufficed to … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Knock and announce | Comments Off on N.D.Miss.: No exclusion for knock-and-announce violation

PA: Exclusionary rule applies to PA probation revocation proceedings

The exclusionary rule applies to probation revocation proceedings in Pennsylvania. Having suppressed in the underlying criminal case, the court should have suppressed on the violation of probation. Commonwealth v. Parson, 2021 PA Super 151, 2021 Pa. Super. LEXIS 487 (July … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Franks doctrine, Probable cause | Comments Off on PA: Exclusionary rule applies to PA probation revocation proceedings

S.D.Ohio: Def’s arrest under a warrant for murder produced a gun; deterrence no value here

Defendant’s arrest under a warrant for murder also produced a gun, for which he was indicted in federal court. This is not an appropriate case for suppression because there’s no deterrence value. United States v. Gray, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on S.D.Ohio: Def’s arrest under a warrant for murder produced a gun; deterrence no value here