Category Archives: Motion to suppress

CA9: Dismissal of indictment for 4A extremely rare remedy; here, district court suppressed

Dismissal of the indictment for violations of the Fourth Amendment are strongly disfavored. Here, the district court suppressed the search, and the government dismissed counts. That’s remedy enough. United States v. Cano, 19-50240 (9th Cir. Aug. 31, 2021). Where the … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on CA9: Dismissal of indictment for 4A extremely rare remedy; here, district court suppressed

M.D.La.: Evidentiary objection to product of search isn’t addressed in a suppression motion

Defendant’s argument is really an evidentiary objection, not a ground to suppress. Suppression is denied. United States v. Sterling, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160728 (M.D.La. Aug. 24, 2021). “Here, the credited testimony of all three officers is that Deputy Lowe … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Consent, Franks doctrine, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on M.D.La.: Evidentiary objection to product of search isn’t addressed in a suppression motion

N.D.Okla.: Motion to suppress must allege basis to overcome GFE, too

Defendant’s motion to suppress must show a fact dispute to get a hearing, including on application of the good faith exception. United States v. Bailey, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138557 (N.D.Okla. July 26, 2021):

Posted in Good faith exception, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on N.D.Okla.: Motion to suppress must allege basis to overcome GFE, too

D.P.R.: Passing reference to a 4A violation in motion to suppress doesn’t preserve it

Passing reference to a Fourth Amendment violation isn’t enough to preserve the issue. United States v. Polaco-Hance, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132937 (D.P.R. July 16, 2021). There was probable cause for the search of defendant’s car under the warrant. A … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Motion to suppress, Plain view, feel, smell, Waiver | Comments Off on D.P.R.: Passing reference to a 4A violation in motion to suppress doesn’t preserve it

LA5: Chain of custody issue after search isn’t a motion to suppress issue

A chain of custody dispute from a search isn’t proper in a motion to suppress. That’s a trial issue. State v. Mackey, 2021 La. App. LEXIS 1068 (La. App. 5 Cir. July 12, 2021). “Plaintiff Sally Gaetjens sued various local … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Emergency / exigency, Immigration arrests, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on LA5: Chain of custody issue after search isn’t a motion to suppress issue

ND: Reasonableness under Heien supported even though erroneous conclusion traffic offense occurred

Whether failure to signal while exiting a roundabout is a traffic offense is a valid reason for a stop or not, it was reasonable for the officer to conclude it was, and that justifies the stop under Heien. City of … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress, Probable cause, Reasonableness, Staleness | Comments Off on ND: Reasonableness under Heien supported even though erroneous conclusion traffic offense occurred

N.D.Ohio: 5 yo child wandering in apt parking lot at 2:30 am was exigency when door was open to apt

A five year old boy found wandering at 2:30 am in an apartment building parking lot was exigency for the police to further open defendant’s partially open door when the apartment was found. United States v. Shorter, 2021 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Motion to suppress, Private search, Standards of review | Comments Off on N.D.Ohio: 5 yo child wandering in apt parking lot at 2:30 am was exigency when door was open to apt

PA: Stop for no LPN permitted running names of occupants

Not having a license plate justified defendant’s stop and then running names. Commonwealth v. Malloy, 2021 PA Super 90, 2021 Pa. Super. LEXIS 278 (May 7, 2021). The backup light being on while driving justifies a stop. People v. Ambrose, … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress, Reasonable suspicion, Scope of search | Comments Off on PA: Stop for no LPN permitted running names of occupants

D.Idaho: Def’s available suppression remedy supplants Rule 41(g) motion seeking to quash SW

Defendant filed a Rule 41(g) motion for return of property that also sought to quash a search warrant. He has the remedy in his criminal case. Purbeck v. Wilkinson, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76412 (D. Idaho Apr. 21, 2021). The … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Motion to suppress, Particularity, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on D.Idaho: Def’s available suppression remedy supplants Rule 41(g) motion seeking to quash SW

W.D.Mo.: Govt moots motion to suppress by deciding not to use challenged evidence

When the defendant files a motion to suppress and the government elects not to use the evidence at trial, the motion becomes moot. United States v. Bowers, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45445 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 11, 2021). Defendant’s 2255 for … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on W.D.Mo.: Govt moots motion to suppress by deciding not to use challenged evidence

IA: Reasonable inference owner of car was driving where owner had a suspended DL

It was a reasonable inference that the owner of a vehicle with a suspended license was driving when the vehicle was seen because the officer’s experience [and commonsense by now] shows that persons with suspended licenses continue to drive. That … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress, Prison and jail searches, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on IA: Reasonable inference owner of car was driving where owner had a suspended DL

KY: Deputy in one county could go to another to investigate; no motion to suppress lies for statutory violation, if there even was one

A motion to suppress for a statutory violation doesn’t work in Kentucky absent a constitutional violation to found it on. Here, a deputy from one county crossed into another county to investigate. The statute defendant relies on deals with arrest, … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Exclusionary rule, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on KY: Deputy in one county could go to another to investigate; no motion to suppress lies for statutory violation, if there even was one

D.Kan.: Pro se motion to suppress of represented def doesn’t attach affidavits, say why 4A or statute violated, or cite any law; denied for having counsel

Defendant is represented by counsel, then files a motion to suppress. “Defendant’s pro se motion reflects a misunderstanding of court proceedings. The Defendant fails to specify which search warrant he objects to, fails to provide a copy, or copies, of … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress, Pretext, Standards of review | Comments Off on D.Kan.: Pro se motion to suppress of represented def doesn’t attach affidavits, say why 4A or statute violated, or cite any law; denied for having counsel

D.Minn.: Seeking “four corners review” of affidavit for SW isn’t a proper motion to suppress

A generalized motion to suppress merely seeking “four corners review” of probable cause is insufficient. “Defendant’s failure to specify the basis for his suppression motion and provide any argument in support thereof warrants denial alone.” “Defendant’s motion also fails because … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress, Probable cause | Comments Off on D.Minn.: Seeking “four corners review” of affidavit for SW isn’t a proper motion to suppress

CA10: Code enforcement officer coming to ptf’s door to talk to him didn’t violate curtilage

A city code enforcement officer who came to plaintiff’s door for a couple of minutes to attempt to talk to him about a sign code violation did not violate the curtilage. Clark v. City of Williamsburg, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS … Continue reading

Posted in Curtilage, Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on CA10: Code enforcement officer coming to ptf’s door to talk to him didn’t violate curtilage

TX3: No “sua sponte duty” in trial court to suppress evidence that the defense didn’t move to suppress

The trial court has no “sua sponte duty” to suppress evidence that the defense didn’t move to suppress. Chila v. State, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 10219 (Tex. App. – Austin Dec. 23, 2020). Police along with USMs entered defendant’s place … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress, Protective sweep, Scope of search | Comments Off on TX3: No “sua sponte duty” in trial court to suppress evidence that the defense didn’t move to suppress

CA11: Dist Ct acted within its discretion denying a suppression motion as untimely

Defense counsel waited past the pretrial motions deadline to file a motion to suppress complaining that he needed a state court transcript, but that hearing was long ago. The district court acted within its discretion in denying the motion for … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on CA11: Dist Ct acted within its discretion denying a suppression motion as untimely

CA5: Def’s contesting authenticity of jail calls let the govt establish they came from jail

Not a search claim: Admission of jail telephone calls didn’t undermine the presumption of innocence. Defendant wouldn’t stipulate to authenticity so the government had to establish the source of the calls. United States v. Arayatanon, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 35922 … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Motion to suppress, Prison and jail searches, Waiver | Comments Off on CA5: Def’s contesting authenticity of jail calls let the govt establish they came from jail

CA9: Tight handcuffing can be excessive force, but this wasn’t

Tight handcuffing can be excessive force. Here, plaintiff complained, and they were loosened. He had only a slight bruise. That’s normal, and summary judgment was properly granted against that claim. Reyes v. City of Santa Ana, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Motion to suppress, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA9: Tight handcuffing can be excessive force, but this wasn’t

N.D.Ga.: Reissuance of a better SW to Google after a motion to suppress wasn’t unreasonable

As to one challenged search of Google, when the government says it won’t use challenged evidence at trial, the motion to suppress becomes moot. A motion to suppress another search warrant to Google led to reissuance of a search warrant … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Independent source, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: Reissuance of a better SW to Google after a motion to suppress wasn’t unreasonable