Category Archives: Motion to suppress

UT: Emergency aid exception permitted entry for apparent homicide victim who was missing

The emergency aid exception permitted entry into this murder scene. The victim was the grandmother of a child who punctually picked the child up every day at school. When she didn’t show for hours, the school notified police. They went … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Emergency / exigency, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on UT: Emergency aid exception permitted entry for apparent homicide victim who was missing

AR: HBO film crew ride-along on drug raid doesn’t lead to suppression

An HBO film crew was doing a ride-along with the DEA and local DTF officers for the making of “Meth Storm.” Defendant raises via post-conviction that the ride-along film crew violated the Fourth Amendment and the state constitution. The court … Continue reading

Posted in Cell site location information, Good faith exception, Ineffective assistance, Motion to suppress, Overbreadth, Warrant execution | Comments Off on AR: HBO film crew ride-along on drug raid doesn’t lead to suppression

DE: Mandamus can’t be used as interlocutory appeal of denial of motion to suppress

A petition for writ of mandamus can’t be used as an interlocutory appeal of denial of a motion to suppress. [Mandamus isn’t anywhere near a possible remedy.] In re Taylor for A Writ of Mandamus, 2023 Del. LEXIS 400 (Dec. … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Burden of pleading, Ineffective assistance, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on DE: Mandamus can’t be used as interlocutory appeal of denial of motion to suppress

D.Mass.: Plea agreement foreclosed return of property

Defendant’s plea agreement foreclosed his Rule 41(g) motion for return of property. United States v. Spencer, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206257 (D. Mass. Nov. 17, 2023). Defendant’s motion to reconsider denial of his motion to suppress the timeliness of his … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Issue preclusion, Motion to suppress, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Voluntariness | Comments Off on D.Mass.: Plea agreement foreclosed return of property

PA: Fleeing a traffic stop and wrecking car and then running off was abandonment of the car

Defendant fled in his car from a traffic stop and wrecked a few blocks away. He abandoned the car at the scene by running off. Commonwealth v. Hall, 2023 PA Super 224, 2023 Pa. Super. LEXIS 513 (Nov. 3, 2023). … Continue reading

Posted in Abandonment, Motion to suppress, Reasonable suspicion, Waiver | Comments Off on PA: Fleeing a traffic stop and wrecking car and then running off was abandonment of the car

NY3: Motion to suppress is an adequate remedy at law, not a writ of prohibition

Defendant sought prohibition to prevent his prosecution because of an illegal search. He has an adequate remedy in a motion to suppress. Denied. Matter of Rodriguez v. Hobbs, 2023 NY Slip Op 05433,2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5399 (3d Dept. … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress, Probable cause, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on NY3: Motion to suppress is an adequate remedy at law, not a writ of prohibition

D.Minn.: Tracking warrant that provided for tracking but not installation was saved by GFE

The tracking warrant provided for tracking of the car, but did not mention installing the tracker. The court finds the good faith exception applies. United States v. Gonzalez, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142057 (D.Minn. Aug. 15, 2023). There was probable … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Ineffective assistance, Motion to suppress, Probable cause, Tracking warrant | Comments Off on D.Minn.: Tracking warrant that provided for tracking but not installation was saved by GFE

NY Albany: Text message confession to molestation to wife was still covered by marital privilege when she disclosed to police

Defendant confessed to his wife by text message to molestation of his nephew. Despite her consenting to turn it over to the police, he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the message and marital privilege still applied. People v. … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Motion to suppress, Privileges, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on NY Albany: Text message confession to molestation to wife was still covered by marital privilege when she disclosed to police

CA8: Motion to suppress via motion for judgment of acquittal results in plain error review

Defendant’s motion to suppress was made as a motion for judgment of acquittal, so it was subject to plain error review, which it was not. United States v. Thornton, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20109 (8th Cir. Aug. 4, 2023). “The … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress, Pretext, Reasonableness, Standards of review | Comments Off on CA8: Motion to suppress via motion for judgment of acquittal results in plain error review

CA11: Outsider to case has no standing in Mar-a-Lago SW litigation to challenge PC

Plaintiff, a citizen who is essentially a person on the street with no particular interest in the case, has no ability to intervene in the Mar-a-Lago search warrant case to argue lack of probable cause, something conceded by the parties. … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Motion to suppress, Plain view, feel, smell, Probation / Parole search, Standing | Comments Off on CA11: Outsider to case has no standing in Mar-a-Lago SW litigation to challenge PC

E.D.Wis.: Late disclosed information justified the late filing of the motion to suppress

Late disclosed information justified the late filing of the motion to suppress. But, it still loses on the merits. United States v. Love, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126671 (E.D. Wis. July 24, 2023).* This stop was based on reasonable suspicion … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on E.D.Wis.: Late disclosed information justified the late filing of the motion to suppress

S.D.Ohio: Federal suit to force state court to apply exclusionary rule barred by Younger and Rooker/Feldman

Plaintiff’s suit in federal court to cause state court to apply the exclusionary rule in state court is barred by Younger and Rooker/Feldman. Chappel v. Adams Cnty. Child.’s Servs., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112877 (S.D. Ohio May 19, 2023). Defendant’s … Continue reading

Posted in Informant hearsay, Issue preclusion, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on S.D.Ohio: Federal suit to force state court to apply exclusionary rule barred by Younger and Rooker/Feldman

CA7: The remedy for an overbroad SW is a motion to suppress, not a motion to dismiss

An alleged overbroad email search warrant is pursued by a motion to suppress, not a motion to dismiss. “The remedy for such Fourth Amendment violations in a criminal proceeding is suppression of the evidence, not dismissal of the indictment or … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Exclusionary rule, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on CA7: The remedy for an overbroad SW is a motion to suppress, not a motion to dismiss

D.Nev.: Affidavits for SWs don’t have to prove the underlying crimes

There was probable cause for the four search warrants here. “Much of Martinez’s arguments are based on the premise that the warrants are unsupported by probable cause because the affidavits did not prove the elements of the target crimes.” They … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress, Private search | Comments Off on D.Nev.: Affidavits for SWs don’t have to prove the underlying crimes

M.D.Ga.: No right to challenge SW before execution

It isn’t apparent that there’s a right to challenge a search warrant before it is executed. (Rule 17 covers motions to quash subpoenas.) Even if there was, defendant doesn’t carry his burden. United States v. Crumpton, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS … Continue reading

Posted in Body searches, Franks doctrine, Motion to suppress, Qualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on M.D.Ga.: No right to challenge SW before execution

CA6: Younger requires the federal case over an arrest or search be stayed, not dismissed

The district court improperly dismissed plaintiff’s case under Younger because of ongoing state proceedings it implicated. It should have stayed it instead. Neal El v. Showman, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 12604 (6th Cir. May 22, 2023). The Fourth Amendment does … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Informant hearsay, Issue preclusion, Motion to suppress, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on CA6: Younger requires the federal case over an arrest or search be stayed, not dismissed

W.D.Pa.: Lack of a proper chain of custody is not a ground for a motion to suppress

Alleged lack of a proper chain of custody is not a ground for a motion to suppress. United States v. Pollard, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88536 (W.D. Pa. May 19, 2023). Defendant’s Fourth Amendment issues on appeal are not the … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Consent, Motion to suppress, Waiver | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: Lack of a proper chain of custody is not a ground for a motion to suppress

OH3: Def’s motion to determine legality of arrest never sought to suppress anything and wasn’t appealable

Defendant’s motion to determine the legality of his arrest was not even called a motion to suppress. It was not even appealable as it was framed. “[T]he motion filed by Sanchez on October 28, 2020, was not captioned a ‘motion … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Motion to suppress, Probation / Parole search, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on OH3: Def’s motion to determine legality of arrest never sought to suppress anything and wasn’t appealable

S.D.Ill.: When moving to suppress “data” one has to be specific

Defendant’s motion to suppress “data” and “associated data” fails because of his failure to show what and where it was or could be. (It kind of becomes a general motion to suppress.) United States v. Smith, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on S.D.Ill.: When moving to suppress “data” one has to be specific

E.D.N.Y.: Without knowing what to suppress, motion to suppress is premature

Defendant’s motion to suppress the search of Device A is premature since the product of the search isn’t yet known. Also, his motion to suppress the search of Device B is denied for lack of standing. It isn’t his. United … Continue reading

Posted in Custody, Motion to suppress, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on E.D.N.Y.: Without knowing what to suppress, motion to suppress is premature