Category Archives: Standards of review

CA10: Overlong stop didn’t cause independent search incident

Defendant was subjected to a search incident for false identification. His overlong stop otherwise didn’t cause that. United States v. Anderson, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 5997 (10th Cir. Mar. 14, 2023).* “Teixeira struggles to throw shade on the reliability of … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Independent source, Search incident, Standards of review | Comments Off on CA10: Overlong stop didn’t cause independent search incident

CA7: Target of SW doesn’t have to be suspected of crime

A target of a search warrant does not have to be suspected of a crime. A holder of “mere evidence” can be subjected to a search warrant. United States v. Roland, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 4987 (7th Cir. Mar. 1, … Continue reading

Posted in Standards of review, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on CA7: Target of SW doesn’t have to be suspected of crime

IN: Fundamental (plain) error of S&S claims requires the evidence be fabricated, not just unconstitutionally obtained

The fundamental error avenue to appeal an unobjected to search and seizure claim requires a showing that the evidence was all fabricated, not just that the search was bad. Evidence obtained by search and seizure is usually highly relevant to … Continue reading

Posted in Standards of review, Waiver | Comments Off on IN: Fundamental (plain) error of S&S claims requires the evidence be fabricated, not just unconstitutionally obtained

NY1: When state doesn’t challenge standing, it’s taken as conceded

When the state doesn’t challenge standing, it’s taken as conceded. The trial court thus erred in deciding standing. People v. Bonilla, 2022 NY Slip Op 07304, 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7136 (1st Dept. Dec. 22, 2022). Defendant had his … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Issue preclusion, Probable cause, Standards of review | Comments Off on NY1: When state doesn’t challenge standing, it’s taken as conceded

AK: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to DV civil proceeding

The exclusionary rule does not apply in Domestic Violence Protective Order proceeding. Green v. State, 2022 Alas. LEXIS 140 (Dec. 14, 2022) (due process claim). Multiple calls between the CI and defendant arranging a fentanyl deal and defendant showing up … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Probable cause, Standards of review | Comments Off on AK: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to DV civil proceeding

CA5: Dog sniff of the person at the border does not require RS

A dog sniff of defendant’s person at the border did not require reasonable suspicion. United States v. Tenorio, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 33978 (5th Cir. Dec. 9, 2022). The credibility determinations on whether defendant was subjected to arrest or not … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Reasonable suspicion, Standards of review | Comments Off on CA5: Dog sniff of the person at the border does not require RS

GA: Consent to search backpack included laptop inside when def didn’t object

Defendant clearly consented to a search of his backpack. When the officer encountered his laptop and opened it to turn it on, defendant never objected. Winslow v. State, 2022 Ga. LEXIS 297 (Nov. 2, 2022). The underlying facts for reasonable … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Computer and cloud searches, Consent, Reasonable suspicion, Standards of review | Comments Off on GA: Consent to search backpack included laptop inside when def didn’t object

D.Neb.: Affidavits for SWs are judged by what they contain, not what they lack

Affidavits for search warrants are judged by what they contain, not what they lack. United States v. Cass, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195502 (D. Neb. Sep. 30, 2022), adopted, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197043 (D.Neb. Oct. 26, 2022). It was … Continue reading

Posted in Abandonment, Excessive force, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, Standards of review | Comments Off on D.Neb.: Affidavits for SWs are judged by what they contain, not what they lack

SC: Request for consent with “do you mind” met with “I do but …” not voluntary. Also no RS for continuing stop.

“Here, even after accepting the trial court’s factual findings as we must do since they are supported by some evidence, we conclude that Hall lacked reasonable suspicion as a matter of law pursuant to de novo review.” As to consent, … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Reasonable suspicion, Standards of review | Comments Off on SC: Request for consent with “do you mind” met with “I do but …” not voluntary. Also no RS for continuing stop.

CA9: PC determination in underlying criminal case precludes review in later § 1983 case

Plaintiff’s probable cause determination in his underlying criminal case was given preclusive effect in his later § 1983 case. Wilcox v. City of L.A., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 24350 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2022). Plaintiff overcame qualified immunity. “Under Louisiana … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Good faith exception, Issue preclusion, Standards of review | Comments Off on CA9: PC determination in underlying criminal case precludes review in later § 1983 case

PA: Hot pursuit justified officer crossing jurisdictional lines

Hot pursuit justified an officer in one jurisdiction following defendants into another one after a robbery report on their car. Commonwealth v. Hobel, 2022 PA Super 86, 2022 Pa. Super. LEXIS 202 (May 10, 2022) (decided under state statute). “A … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Standards of review | Comments Off on PA: Hot pursuit justified officer crossing jurisdictional lines

D.Me.: Settled law at the time means exclusionary rule not applied, even if the law was later changing

Officers relied on settled law in this circuit that the search incident was valid. Maybe it wouldn’t be later, but it was at the time. The exclusionary rule should not be applied under Davis. “Given the similarity of these two … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception, Standards of review | Comments Off on D.Me.: Settled law at the time means exclusionary rule not applied, even if the law was later changing

CA11: 4A violation isn’t actual innocence claim for habeas

An alleged Fourth Amendment violation is not an actual innocence claim for habeas. “Fourth, he argues that he is actually innocent given that he was denied his right to counsel when investigators continued to interrogate him, despite his unequivocal request … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Standards of review | Comments Off on CA11: 4A violation isn’t actual innocence claim for habeas

E.D.Tenn.: USDJ doesn’t second guess USMJ’s credibility determinations in the R&R

USDJ doesn’t second guess USMJ’s credibility determinations in the R&R on a motion to suppress. United States v. Bowman, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69156 (E.D.Tenn. Apr. 14, 2022).* A bag left outdoors at an apartment complex for more than a … Continue reading

Posted in Abandonment, Arrest or entry on arrest, Custody, Seizure, Standards of review | Comments Off on E.D.Tenn.: USDJ doesn’t second guess USMJ’s credibility determinations in the R&R

W.D.Ky.: Crime victim with animosity toward def is not unreliable CI just because of that

A crime victim isn’t unreliable for informant hearsay just because of animosity toward the defendant. United States v. Collins, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63999 (W.D.Ky. Feb. 7, 2022). The trial court erred in finding defendant’s consent to a blood draw … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Informant hearsay, Standards of review, Voluntariness | Comments Off on W.D.Ky.: Crime victim with animosity toward def is not unreliable CI just because of that

CA8: Car seizure for overtinting and inventory were reasonable

Defendant’s car was permissibly seized for overtinting, and the subsequent search was reasonable as inventory. United States v. Perez, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 8697 (8th Cir. Apr. 1, 2022).* “Even assuming arguendo that Thrasher could make a substantial preliminary showing … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Inventory, Standards of review | Comments Off on CA8: Car seizure for overtinting and inventory were reasonable

OH11: Dragging out the stop a few minutes to allow drug dog to arrive made it unreasonable

In a state where the appellate courts are overly solicitous of police calling for drug dog sniffs in traffic stops, this court finds the stop prolonged for the drug dog to get there without reasonable suspicion. Neyhard v. State, 2022-Ohio-1098, … Continue reading

Posted in Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, Standards of review | Comments Off on OH11: Dragging out the stop a few minutes to allow drug dog to arrive made it unreasonable

CA6: On “four corners” review, new evidence isn’t considered

Search warrant applications are reviewed on the “four corners” of the affidavit. “New evidence” isn’t considered. United States v. Shade, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43451 (6th Cir. Mar. 9, 2022). There was reasonable suspicion for the officer to expand the … Continue reading

Posted in Issue preclusion, Reasonable suspicion, Standards of review | Comments Off on CA6: On “four corners” review, new evidence isn’t considered

CA9: Interstate truck driver had apparent authority to consent to search of package in truck

An Old Dominion truck driver had apparent authority to open a package consigned to him and his company to haul. He became suspicious it was contraband and called the police. They wouldn’t act without probable cause so the driver took … Continue reading

Posted in Apparent authority, Reasonable suspicion, Standards of review | Comments Off on CA9: Interstate truck driver had apparent authority to consent to search of package in truck

IL: Officer’s interpretation of lane movement statute was unreasonable and stop suppressed

Defendant’s move within his lane was clearly not a violation of the lane change statute, so the stop based on that was not objectively reasonable. The product of the stop is suppressed. People v. Jackson, 2022 IL App (3d) 190621, … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonableness, Standards of review | Comments Off on IL: Officer’s interpretation of lane movement statute was unreasonable and stop suppressed