Category Archives: Standards of review

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

NY1: PC to arrest and to search are different things

Probable cause to arrest and to search are different things. (One doesn’t automatically lead to the other.) Salcedo v. City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 00523, 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 501 (1st Dept. Jan. 27, 2022). The … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Probable cause, Standards of review | Comments Off on NY1: PC to arrest and to search are different things

D.Nev.: Def’s Facebook posts he was selling fake IDs gave PC to search it

An officer found defendant selling fake IDs via Facebook. “The Facebook Warrant contained posts from this account indicating that the account-operator was selling fake IDs, including by specifying that the IDs could help people avoid warrants, fines, and jail time. … Continue reading

Posted in Probable cause, Social media warrants, Standards of review | Comments Off on D.Nev.: Def’s Facebook posts he was selling fake IDs gave PC to search it

E.D.Pa.: Govt’s post-trial concession search was illegal undermines half the counts of conviction, and no harmless error on remainder

The government concedes after conviction on seven counts that three of the counts against defendant were the product of an illegal search. They argue the remainder can stand without it. It can’t because, if there was any doubt for any … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Standards of review | Comments Off on E.D.Pa.: Govt’s post-trial concession search was illegal undermines half the counts of conviction, and no harmless error on remainder

CA7: Record supported finding that stop was not unreasonably extended

Whether a traffic stop was unreasonably extended for a drug dog to arrive is reviewed for clear error. The stop here was for overtinting, and the officer processed a warning by entering the information into the patrol car’s computer. He … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, DNA, Ineffective assistance, Reasonableness, Standards of review | Comments Off on CA7: Record supported finding that stop was not unreasonably extended

MO: Trial court’s credibility findings on search incident of backpack was binding on appeal

The trial court suppressed the search of defendant’s backpack as incident to his arrest. The trial court heard conflicting testimony on whether it was within his reach, and concluded it was not. That’s binding on the standard of review. State … Continue reading

Posted in Private search, Reasonable suspicion, Standards of review | Comments Off on MO: Trial court’s credibility findings on search incident of backpack was binding on appeal

OH12: Trial court’s finding of no RS and no consent affirmed

The state failed to prove that the stop was with reasonable suspicion. “While Officer Ianson’s questioning was not expressly coercive, the circumstances surrounding the request to search made the questioning impliedly coercive. Thus, the circumstances suggest that Massey merely submitted … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Excessive force, Reasonable suspicion, Standards of review | Comments Off on OH12: Trial court’s finding of no RS and no consent affirmed

WV: Officer admitted prior testimony was erroneous; not incredible as a matter of law

The officer obtaining the search warrant here was found to have mistakenly testified in federal court that he did not personally present this warrant to the magistrate. Admission of that mistake was credited here that he did present the affidavit. … Continue reading

Posted in Collective knowledge, Reasonable suspicion, Standards of review | Comments Off on WV: Officer admitted prior testimony was erroneous; not incredible as a matter of law

CA11: Failure to seek review of R&R is waiver

Defendant did not seek review of the R&R by the USDJ, so appellate review was waived. Also, plain error review not sought. United States v. Fisher, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 37847 (11th Cir. Dec. 21, 2021). Citizen complaint from the … Continue reading

Posted in Informant hearsay, Standards of review | Comments Off on CA11: Failure to seek review of R&R is waiver

CA2: SW said “electronics” and “passwords” to access them, but it did not say “computers”; those words mean computers

The search warrant used the word “electronics” and “passwords” to access them, but it did not say “computers.” “Because the warrant specifically permitted seizure of “electronics,” a category into which computers and tablets would fall under the plain text, not … Continue reading

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, School searches, Standards of review | Comments Off on CA2: SW said “electronics” and “passwords” to access them, but it did not say “computers”; those words mean computers

CA8: Child porn knock-and-talk leads to valid exigency-based warrantless entry

This case started with a knock-and-talk about defendant visiting websites involving commercial sex acts with children. “While talking with William Meyer outside his home, federal agents grew worried that, if he went back inside, he would destroy evidence. Rather than … Continue reading

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Emergency / exigency, Knock and talk, Standards of review | Comments Off on CA8: Child porn knock-and-talk leads to valid exigency-based warrantless entry

CA1: Stopping def’s vehicle by heading into it was a seizure, and here it was with PC

Defendant’s vehicle “containment” where police stopped him by coming front bumper to bumper was a seizure under Brower v. County of Inyo. He attempted to flee by backing into other police cars and a civilian’s car. The seizure was with … Continue reading

Posted in Scope of search, Seizure, Standards of review | Comments Off on CA1: Stopping def’s vehicle by heading into it was a seizure, and here it was with PC

CO: Abuse of discretion standard applies to expanding search issues on remand

The abuse of discretion standard applies to trial courts permitting the parties to make additional arguments or put on additional evidence on remand within the scope of the remand. The appellate court’s standard is rejected. People v. Tallent, 2021 CO … Continue reading

Posted in Standards of review | Comments Off on CO: Abuse of discretion standard applies to expanding search issues on remand

OH1: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in probation revo proceedings

The exclusionary rule does not apply to probation revocation proceedings. (Defendant relies on a 1983 case overruled in 1996.) State v. Richardson, 2021-Ohio-3362, 2021 Ohio App. LEXIS 3302 (1st Dist. Sept. 24, 2021). Defendant’s 2255 reasserts numerous claims, one of … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Plain view, feel, smell, Standards of review | Comments Off on OH1: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in probation revo proceedings

E.D.Pa.: This judge wouldn’t have signed this SW, but that’s not the standard of review

While this judge wouldn’t have issued the search warrant on the information provided, that’s not the standard of review. There was, in fact, a substantial basis for finding probable cause. United States v. Moore, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178263 (E.D.Pa. … Continue reading

Posted in Standards of review | Comments Off on E.D.Pa.: This judge wouldn’t have signed this SW, but that’s not the standard of review

D.N.J.: Review in a motion to suppress is not de novo

The affidavit for search warrant was based on probable cause. Review in a motion to suppress is not de novo. United States v. Harper, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162543 (D.N.J. Aug. 26, 2021). Defendant was stopped with reasonable suspicion, and … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Consent, Standards of review | Comments Off on D.N.J.: Review in a motion to suppress is not de novo