Category Archives: Motion to suppress

CA2: IAC claim not proper on motion for new trial

The district court acted within its discretion to deny a motion for new trial on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim for not moving to suppress before the trial. Defendant can raise it in post-conviction. United States v. Atuana, 2020 … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on CA2: IAC claim not proper on motion for new trial

CA7: Even though the 4A was complied with, if the question is relevance or prejudice, a motion in limine is proper, not a motion to suppress

Just because the Fourth Amendment was complied with doesn’t mean that the evidence seized is relevant (Rule 401) or the evidence could be more prejudicial than relevant (Rule 403). Then, suppression isn’t the remedy – a motion in limine is. … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Arrest or entry on arrest, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on CA7: Even though the 4A was complied with, if the question is relevance or prejudice, a motion in limine is proper, not a motion to suppress

NE: Def’s purse could be searched under automobile exception even though it had already been removed from car

Defendant’s purse was validly searched under the automobile exception after the backup officer smelled marijuana coming from the car. It didn’t matter that it wasn’t in the car at the time of the search. State v. Lang, 305 Neb. 726 … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on NE: Def’s purse could be searched under automobile exception even though it had already been removed from car

Two on waiver for untimeliness

Pro se defendant making a motion to suppress during trial was waiver. He talked about it with his former attorney and waited until the government offered it into evidence. United States v. Young, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 10820 (7th Cir. … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress | Comments Off on Two on waiver for untimeliness

CA11: Failure to join in the codef’s motion to suppress is waiver

Failure to join in the codefendant’s motion to suppress is waiver. United States v. Russa, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 9288 (11th Cir. Mar. 25, 2020). In a 2254 COA: “Assuming that counsel was deficient in failing to raise the plain-view … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on CA11: Failure to join in the codef’s motion to suppress is waiver

D.Alaska: No Franks duty to tell issuing magistrate of failed challenges to same CP search software elsewhere

The FBI agent applying for the search warrant had no Franks duty to tell the issuing magistrate that Torrential Downpour, the software they were using, had been challenged elsewhere where the challenges had failed. United States v. Schwier, 2020 U.S. … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on D.Alaska: No Franks duty to tell issuing magistrate of failed challenges to same CP search software elsewhere

D.Nev.: No motions through six continuances and past motions deadline all untimely

After six continuances in 18 months or so, the defendants’ motion to suppress and other motions filed on the eve of trial are denied as untimely. United States v. Phillips, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42782 (D. Nev. Mar. 11, 2020). … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on D.Nev.: No motions through six continuances and past motions deadline all untimely

OH: Lack of RS for stop or knowledge of an arrest warrant denies state reliance on Strieff for outstanding warrant

Defendant was sitting in a car near a drug house doing nothing wrong. Police accosted him under the pretext there might be a warrant for him. It turned out there was. Even applying Strieff, the court concludes that Strieff was … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Motion to suppress, Standing | Comments Off on OH: Lack of RS for stop or knowledge of an arrest warrant denies state reliance on Strieff for outstanding warrant

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