Category Archives: Motion to suppress

VA: Drugs on the person during a stop led to PC for vehicle

The patdown of defendant’s person produced drugs. That gave probable cause to search the car too. McCoy v. Commonwealth, 2025 Va. App. LEXIS 445 (Aug. 5, 2025). The state gets a hearing on whether there was additional information they had … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Franks doctrine, Good faith exception, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on VA: Drugs on the person during a stop led to PC for vehicle

N.D.Ind.: Pro se def’s post-trial motion to dismiss for 4A issue he didn’t fully appreciate timely is denied

Pro se defendant can’t raise a post-trial Fourth Amendment claim because he didn’t fully understand the FBI 302 discussing the search. “What Defendant is experiencing are the real-world consequences that he was warned of when he elected to proceed pro … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Franks doctrine, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on N.D.Ind.: Pro se def’s post-trial motion to dismiss for 4A issue he didn’t fully appreciate timely is denied

E.D.Ky.: Only “some temporal reference” is required to avoid staleness

The affidavit for search warrant shows sufficient references to recent time to show it was not stale. “Put plainly, the Sixth Circuit does not require a search warrant affidavit to include the temporal specificity which Hardaway suggests is necessary. Rather, … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress, Private search, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Staleness | Comments Off on E.D.Ky.: Only “some temporal reference” is required to avoid staleness

S.D.Tex.: If you’re moving to suppress, at least say what is to be suppressed

Defendant moves to suppress without saying what it is that should be suppressed. [So why not just find it moot?] Defendant raises a Franks challenge and a lack of probable cause. He doesn’t prevail on either. United States v. Alhemoud, … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on S.D.Tex.: If you’re moving to suppress, at least say what is to be suppressed

E.D.La.: Def still a danger to community after grant of motion to suppress; reopening detention hearing denied

After defendant’s motion to suppress was granted, he moved to reopen his detention hearing. It’s denied. The government superseded the indictment, and he’s still found to be a danger to the community. “The Court may thus properly consider suppressed evidence … Continue reading

Posted in Independent source, Inventory, Motion to suppress, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on E.D.La.: Def still a danger to community after grant of motion to suppress; reopening detention hearing denied

D.N.J.: Admin SW can’t be quashed before execution

The company here refused an OSHA administrative inspection, so OSHA got an administrative warrant. Then the company moved to quash. Citing In re Anthony Marano Company, 556 F. Supp. 3d 890 (N.D. Ill. 2021), the court holds there is no … Continue reading

Posted in Administrative search, Motion to suppress, Prison and jail searches, Probable cause | Comments Off on D.N.J.: Admin SW can’t be quashed before execution

C.D.Cal.: Habeas can’t be used in place of a pretrial motion to suppress

Federal habeas, here § 2241, can’t be used in place of a pretrial motion to suppress. Poulson v. Ulbricht, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76512 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2025), adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75519 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2025):

Posted in Motion to suppress | Comments Off on C.D.Cal.: Habeas can’t be used in place of a pretrial motion to suppress

D.Alaska: Motions in limine aren’t motions to suppress

Defendant filed a motion in limine in lieu of a motion to suppress which was otherwise out of time. A motion in limine isn’t a substitute for a motion to suppress. Nevertheless, the court goes to the merits of the … Continue reading

Posted in Collective knowledge, Motion to suppress, Qualified immunity, Standing | Comments Off on D.Alaska: Motions in limine aren’t motions to suppress

CA6: Mandamus doesn’t lie to force grant of a motion to suppress

Mandamus doesn’t lie to compel a district court to grant a motion to suppress and dismiss an indictment because of an alleged change in the dates of the charge to cover up an illegal search. There’s a possible remedy in … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress, Qualified immunity, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on CA6: Mandamus doesn’t lie to force grant of a motion to suppress

OH2: Motion to suppress not proper to challenge authentication of a record for trial

A motion to suppress doesn’t lie just because the defense thinks that a record can be authenticated under Rule 901. State v. Wolfe, 2025-Ohio-866 (2d Dist. Mar. 14, 2025). “Because Phillips did not make a contemporaneous objection to either the … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Ineffective assistance, Motion to suppress, Reasonable suspicion, Waiver | Comments Off on OH2: Motion to suppress not proper to challenge authentication of a record for trial

D.P.R.: Motion to dismiss for an alleged illegal search is not the proper way to raise the issue

A motion to dismiss for an alleged illegal search is not the proper way to raise the issue. United States v. Ruiz-Ruiz, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47357 (D.P.R. Mar. 12, 2025):

Posted in Motion to suppress | Comments Off on D.P.R.: Motion to dismiss for an alleged illegal search is not the proper way to raise the issue

D.D.C.: Under Grubbs, a geofence de-anonymizer SW can’t be challenged before execution

Google responded to a series of search warrants for information and finally objected to a warrant to de-anonymize the information it previously provided. It can’t challenge the warrant before execution under Grubbs. Google LLC v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress, Warrant execution | Comments Off on D.D.C.: Under Grubbs, a geofence de-anonymizer SW can’t be challenged before execution

AK: Overbroad part of cell phone SW was severable from the valid part, and that properly came in at trial

This cell phone search warrant was not particular and without probable cause as to “app data,” but it was as to text messages. “If this unlawful provision was the only provision of the warrant that authorized a search for Facebook … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Motion to suppress, Overbreadth, Probable cause | Comments Off on AK: Overbroad part of cell phone SW was severable from the valid part, and that properly came in at trial

CA3: There is no REP in the exterior of a package in transit

The initial detention and exterior inspection of the parcel sent to defendant did not implicate his Fourth Amendment rights because it occurred within the guaranteed delivery window. He had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the exterior of the parcel … Continue reading

Posted in Mail and packages, Motion to suppress, Plain view, feel, smell, Standing | Comments Off on CA3: There is no REP in the exterior of a package in transit

NY Erie Co.: State prosecutors have no control over federal officers involved in state search for discovery purposes

State prosecutors aren’t necessarily obliged to give over information on federal officers present at a state search considering they have no control over them and their testimony may be hard fought via Touhy letters and they may have nothing additional … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on NY Erie Co.: State prosecutors have no control over federal officers involved in state search for discovery purposes

CA7: Even if police potentially escalated the situation, ptf’s use of a gun justified deadly force

Even if the officers failed to properly announce themselves and even if the defendants’ actions exacerbated the possibility of a dangerous confrontation, Ancheta’s action, the use of his gun, was an intervening cause of the deadly force. The defendants escalated … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Consent, Excessive force, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on CA7: Even if police potentially escalated the situation, ptf’s use of a gun justified deadly force

NM: Trial courts can raise search issues on their own

A trial judge in New Mexico noticed that there were an unusual number of suspect warrantless searches going unchallenged by the defense. She set suppression hearings and several cases were nolle prossed. A few survived to be heard. On certification … Continue reading

Posted in Informant hearsay, Motion to suppress, Probation / Parole search, Suppression hearings, Waiver | Comments Off on NM: Trial courts can raise search issues on their own

E.D.Pa.: Remedy for illegal search is to move to suppress, not to dismiss the case

A ground to suppress a search belongs in a motion to suppress, not to dismiss the indictment. United States v. Bailey, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198707 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2024). The search warrant didn’t provide the address of the … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Motion to suppress, Particularity, Probable cause | Comments Off on E.D.Pa.: Remedy for illegal search is to move to suppress, not to dismiss the case

C.D.Cal.: Motion to suppress admitting no facts is denied as speculative

Defendant’s motion to suppress admitting no knowledge of the facts is denied as speculative. United States v. Lipman, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158940 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 4, 2024). “Here, the totality of the circumstances indicates that Agent Oliver had a … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Issue preclusion, Motion to suppress, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on C.D.Cal.: Motion to suppress admitting no facts is denied as speculative

CA3: Reframing issues outside of the original argument below requires plain error review

Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3)’s good-cause standard applied to defendant’s specific suppression arguments that were raised for the first time on appeal rather than plain error review under Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). Because defendant did not demonstrate good cause … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on CA3: Reframing issues outside of the original argument below requires plain error review