Category Archives: Motion to suppress

E.D.Mich.: No ex ante opportunity for email account holder to challenge SW

Targets of an email search warrant lack standing to challenge the search warrant ex ante, before execution. They must do so after. In the Matter of the Search of Records, Information, and Data Associated with 14 Email Addresses Controlled by … Continue reading

Posted in E-mail, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: No ex ante opportunity for email account holder to challenge SW

Cal.: Mid-trial objection to question based on lack of PC for search was untimely objection to the search

A mid-trial objection to evidence on the ground there was no probable cause for the police action in the search was untimely. It can only be brought during trial if the facts weren’t known until then, and that’s not what … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Motion to suppress, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on Cal.: Mid-trial objection to question based on lack of PC for search was untimely objection to the search

D.Nev.: Def’s motion to join codef’s motion to suppress requires showing of REP in joinder motion

Defendant’s motion to join a codefendant’s motion to suppress requires a showing of his reasonable expectation of privacy in the joinder motion. United States v. Palafox, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3698 (D. Nev. Jan. 7, 2020). “[T]he affidavit includes facts … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Motion to suppress, Probable cause | Comments Off on D.Nev.: Def’s motion to join codef’s motion to suppress requires showing of REP in joinder motion

GA: Lack of a particularized motion to suppress didn’t preserve 4A claim for appeal

Defendant did not file a particularized motion to suppress, so he couldn’t raise the issue on appeal. State v. Walker, 2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 266 (May 17, 2019). Defendant’s statement during the course of the search of his house was … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress | Comments Off on GA: Lack of a particularized motion to suppress didn’t preserve 4A claim for appeal

CA2: Failure to make an offer of proof in motion to suppress means denial of the motion

“For starters, Ferrer was not entitled to a hearing on his motion to suppress. The motion, filed by counsel, was unaccompanied by any affidavit to support the charge that Ferrer was subjected to ‘an unlawful police-initiated interrogation.’ Gov’t App’x 2. … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress | Comments Off on CA2: Failure to make an offer of proof in motion to suppress means denial of the motion

W.D.Wash.: 14 month delay in searching seized cell phone was reasonable because it wouldn’t have been returned anyway

A 14 month delay between seizure and search of defendant’s cell phone was not unreasonable because the phone would not have been returned to defendant in any event. Plus, he was in jail and couldn’t possess it. United States v. … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Informant hearsay, Motion to suppress, Reasonableness | Comments Off on W.D.Wash.: 14 month delay in searching seized cell phone was reasonable because it wouldn’t have been returned anyway

DE: Untimely motion to suppress properly denied; def would lose on the merits anyway

Failure to file a motion to suppress before trial constituted a waiver of claims regarding the admissibility of items found at defendant’s garage. There was no plain error in the application of the inevitable discovery rule because it was clear … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on DE: Untimely motion to suppress properly denied; def would lose on the merits anyway

D.Ariz.: Raising a search issue 5 months after conviction is a little too late

Defendant’s suppression argument five months after conviction is too late. Besides, it doesn’t allege anything of substance anyway. United States v. Alahmedalabdaloklah, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189719 (D. Ariz. Nov. 6, 2018).* Defendant’s search claim is denied without even telling … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on D.Ariz.: Raising a search issue 5 months after conviction is a little too late

D.Minn.: Res judicata doesn’t bar relitigating motion to suppress within same proceeding

A ruling on a motion to suppress during the proceedings is subject to change. It is not governed by res judicata because it isn’t final. United States v. Baez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184017 (D. Minn. Aug. 30, 2018), adopted, … Continue reading

Posted in Hot pursuit, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on D.Minn.: Res judicata doesn’t bar relitigating motion to suppress within same proceeding

DE: Motion deadlines are there for a reason; the defense doesn’t show “exceptional circumstances” to overcome the deadline

There are motion deadlines for a reason. Former defense counsel reviewed the file and didn’t see a basis for a motion to suppress. Another defense lawyer came in and did. The excuse for getting around the deadline is late disclosure … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress | Comments Off on DE: Motion deadlines are there for a reason; the defense doesn’t show “exceptional circumstances” to overcome the deadline

WV: Def can’t show abuse of discretion for trial court to not consider oral motion to suppress instead of a written one

Defendant can’t show an abuse of discretion from the trial judge’s declining to consider an oral motion to suppress. The rule says it’s in the discretion of the trial court. State v. Gaiser, 2018 W. Va. LEXIS 370 (May 14, … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress | Comments Off on WV: Def can’t show abuse of discretion for trial court to not consider oral motion to suppress instead of a written one

NY4: Oral motion to suppress denied; has to be written

An oral motion to suppress fails. It was required to be in writing for the record. People v. Hinojoso-Soto, 2018 NY Slip Op 03264, 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3195 (4th Dept. May 4, 2018). Driving a car at a … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress, Warrant execution | Comments Off on NY4: Oral motion to suppress denied; has to be written