Category Archives: Motion to suppress

S.D.Miss.: Drug SW permitted search of a safe even though not specified

This drug search warrant didn’t mention a safe, but that was a place where they could be found, so the search was proper. Also, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Manning, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109676 (S.D. Miss. … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Good faith exception, Motion to suppress, Probation / Parole search, Scope of search | Comments Off on S.D.Miss.: Drug SW permitted search of a safe even though not specified

D.Mont.: FBI 302s not discoverable to aid in PC and particularity challenge

Defendant cannot get discovery of FBI 302s just to see if the search warrant was based on whatever information that would disclose. United States v. Purkey, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104824 (D. Mont. June 11, 2024). After all, the four … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Cell site location information, Motion to suppress, Particularity, Prison and jail searches, Warrant papers | Comments Off on D.Mont.: FBI 302s not discoverable to aid in PC and particularity challenge

W.D.Pa.: File your motion to suppress, and the court will hear a Brady then

What defendant knows about his search, since it happened to him, is enough to file a motion to suppress. His discovery request beyond what he already knows about the search should wait for him to file a motion to suppress. … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: File your motion to suppress, and the court will hear a Brady then

S.D.Fla.: Emergency motion to quash SW denied; def can still file a motion to suppress

The target of a search filed an emergency motion to quash a search warrant for DNA to compare it to a firearm but without a showing there was DNA on the gun. The motion is denied, but the target can … Continue reading

Posted in DNA, Motion to suppress, Plain view, feel, smell, Search incident | Comments Off on S.D.Fla.: Emergency motion to quash SW denied; def can still file a motion to suppress

D.Minn.: Regular CI had “extensive knowledge of street gangs, firearms, and narcotics distribution”; there was PC

The CI had “extensive knowledge of street gangs, firearms, and narcotics distribution,” and he’d been providing information for three months. The officers corroborated what they could. What little omissions there were in the affidavit weren’t material to the finding of … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Informant hearsay, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on D.Minn.: Regular CI had “extensive knowledge of street gangs, firearms, and narcotics distribution”; there was PC

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