Category Archives: Standards of review

LA3: State showed abandonment of car at hearing even though trial court decided on other grounds

The state argued and showed abandonment, but the trial court didn’t decide it. On appeal, the court finds that defendant abandoned his car after a police chase and he bailed out of the car and ran. State v. Guidry, 2019 … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Abandonment, Standards of review | Comments Off on LA3: State showed abandonment of car at hearing even though trial court decided on other grounds

ID: Right-result, wrong-theory rule requires preservation of the alternative argument

The state can’t use the right-result, wrong-theory rule when it doesn’t preserve the alternative argument to give the other party the opportunity to develop the record. State v. Hoskins, 2019 Ida. LEXIS 108 (June 13, 2019). The evidence available to … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Standards of review | Comments Off on ID: Right-result, wrong-theory rule requires preservation of the alternative argument

N.D.Iowa: Suppression hearing review isn’t de novo; it’s whether there is a substantial basis for finding PC

The district court’s duty at a suppression hearing is not de novo review of probable cause – it’s whether there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the issuing magistrate that there was probable cause. United States v. Mohring, … Continue reading

Posted in Probable cause, Standards of review | Comments Off on N.D.Iowa: Suppression hearing review isn’t de novo; it’s whether there is a substantial basis for finding PC

CA8: Hotel staff photographed evidence of drug use in room which corroborated CI

The information in the search warrant application was sufficient to show a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found in a hotel room registered to a known drug user who had recently tested positive for … Continue reading

Posted in Informant hearsay, Probable cause, Standards of review | Comments Off on CA8: Hotel staff photographed evidence of drug use in room which corroborated CI

W.D.Wash.: A potential claim of excessive force during a search doesn’t justify discovery of other alleged incidents of excessive force during searches

Defendant plans a suppression motion claiming that the search was invalid for use of excessive force during the search. He seeks discovery of other allegations of excessive force during searches by the officers, and it’s denied as speculative. United States … Continue reading

Posted in Standards of review, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on W.D.Wash.: A potential claim of excessive force during a search doesn’t justify discovery of other alleged incidents of excessive force during searches

CO: Law of the case doesn’t bar consideration of undecided arguments to support a search

Law of the case isn’t always completely binding but usually is, and it certainly permits the trial court to consider other issues not decided in the original appeal against suppression of the evidence. People v. Morehead, 2019 CO 48, 2019 … Continue reading

Posted in Standards of review | Comments Off on CO: Law of the case doesn’t bar consideration of undecided arguments to support a search

AK: Can’t argue one 4A theory to trial court and another to appellate court

In the trial court, defendant argued that the seizure of his clothing in a hospital room was not a valid plain view. On appeal, however, he argues that entry into the hospital room itself was unreasonable. One can’t change the … Continue reading

Posted in Probable cause, Standards of review | Comments Off on AK: Can’t argue one 4A theory to trial court and another to appellate court

CA5: When both PC and GFE are appealed, both have to be argued on appeal or both are waived

When probable cause and the good faith exception are both decided by the district court, both must be argued on appeal or the whole issue of the validity of the warrant is waived for appeal. “We note initially that Huerta … Continue reading

Posted in Standards of review | Comments Off on CA5: When both PC and GFE are appealed, both have to be argued on appeal or both are waived

ND: 14 hour old information for a probation search was not stale

14 hour old information for a probation search was not stale. State v. Stenhoff, 2019 ND 106 (Apr. 11, 2019). Defendant didn’t preserve his search issues for appeal under state law. “In attempting to reserve the question of whether Defendant … Continue reading

Posted in Probation / Parole search, Staleness, Standards of review | Comments Off on ND: 14 hour old information for a probation search was not stale

TN: Credibility determinations in motions to suppress are the province of the trial court

Credibility of the witnesses at a suppression hearing is entrusted to the trial court, and it isn’t subject to review on appeal. State v. Belt, 2019 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 208 (Apr. 1, 2019). A conclusory or general objection to … Continue reading

Posted in Standards of review | Comments Off on TN: Credibility determinations in motions to suppress are the province of the trial court

MD: The actual inventory is the list of what was seized, not necessarily from exactly where it was seized

“What the inventory must list, as was properly done in this case, is the property that was actually seized, not the rooms that were searched. To describe the scope of the search is not the function of an inventory list.” … Continue reading

Posted in Inventory, Standards of review | Comments Off on MD: The actual inventory is the list of what was seized, not necessarily from exactly where it was seized

D.Ariz.: Carpenter doesn’t change the third-party doctrine as to IP information

Carpenter doesn’t change the third-party doctrine as to IP information. United States v. McCutchin, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36811 (D. Ariz. Mar. 7, 2019). The affidavits “are somewhat thin,” but this is deferential, not de novo, review, and, while this … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable expectation of privacy, Standards of review, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on D.Ariz.: Carpenter doesn’t change the third-party doctrine as to IP information