Category Archives: Standards of review

NE: Because of direct evidence def was involved in crime, computer search history was harmless error, if error at all

Defendant challenged the search for lack of probable cause of the search history of his computer that produced evidence he searched for violent pornographic videos that matched how the victim was killed. There was direct evidence he was involved in … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, Standards of review | Comments Off on NE: Because of direct evidence def was involved in crime, computer search history was harmless error, if error at all

OH4: Changing argument from legality of patdown to plain feel was waiver

Defendant’s appellate argument changed from whether there was reasonable suspicion for a patdown to conceding the patdown was legal but the plain feel of a hard object found in her vagina was not. That’s waiver of the argument. State v. … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Standards of review | Comments Off on OH4: Changing argument from legality of patdown to plain feel was waiver

NM: Trial court found truth between dashcam video and the testimony of the officer and the def; still entitled to deference on appeal

The trial court considered the dashcam and the officer’s and defendant’s testimony because the dashcam wasn’t conclusive: “But I think it just goes to show you really need to review the video in every case. And in this case, after … Continue reading

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Standards of review | Comments Off on NM: Trial court found truth between dashcam video and the testimony of the officer and the def; still entitled to deference on appeal

OH2: Not clearly erroneous for court to rely on dashcam over officer’s testimony re stop

The trial court could rely on the dashcam video over the officer’s testimony where there was an apparent contradiction. State v. Wilson, 2017-Ohio-9317, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 5816 (2d Dist. Dec. 29, 2017). Defendant’s stop was based on reasonable suspicion … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Standards of review | Comments Off on OH2: Not clearly erroneous for court to rely on dashcam over officer’s testimony re stop

MO: Where 2 SWs authorize search, both have to be suppressed for def to prevail; challenging only one is moot

There were two search warrants authorizing the search of defendant’s computers for child pornography. He challenged the second but not the first, and that makes his argument moot. State v. Cato, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 1298 (Dec. 12, 2017). A … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Computer searches, Standards of review | Comments Off on MO: Where 2 SWs authorize search, both have to be suppressed for def to prevail; challenging only one is moot

OH12: Without def bringing up a suppression hearing transcript, findings uncontradicted

With no transcript of the suppression hearing, there’s nothing to contradict the trial court’s findings. State v. Harding, 2017-Ohio-8930, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 5373 (12th Dist. Dec. 11, 2017). Defense counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress wasn’t ineffective … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Standards of review | Comments Off on OH12: Without def bringing up a suppression hearing transcript, findings uncontradicted

AZ: State didn’t argue GFE and court gives it a pass

The state didn’t raise the good faith exception in the trial court, but the court applies the “we can affirm on any ground” rule to apply it anyway. State v. Weakland, 2017 Ariz. App. LEXIS 202 (Nov. 28, 2017):

Posted in Burden of pleading, Burden of proof, Good faith exception, Standards of review | Comments Off on AZ: State didn’t argue GFE and court gives it a pass

OH12: Def’s petition for discretionary review dismissed for failure to file briefs leaves appellate result intact

The trial court suppressed but the court of appeals reversed. The supreme court granted discretionary review, but it was dismissed for defendant’s failure to file a brief. The case was remanded back to the trial court, and the appellate reversal … Continue reading

Posted in Plain view, feel, smell, Standards of review | Comments Off on OH12: Def’s petition for discretionary review dismissed for failure to file briefs leaves appellate result intact

NY: Officer safety a mixed question of law and fact with record support; affirmed

“The issue whether ‘the likelihood of a weapon in [defendant’s] car [was] substantial and the danger to the … safety [of the officers who stopped that vehicle was] “actual and specific”’ … presents a mixed question of law and fact … Continue reading

Posted in Standards of review | Comments Off on NY: Officer safety a mixed question of law and fact with record support; affirmed

TX4 seemingly applies wrong standard of review to RS

Defendant wasn’t seized just because he and an officer were conversing. On the totality, the trial court reasonably concluded that the officer had reasonable suspicion to continue it and ask for consent to search defendant’s wallet. [The court says, however: … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Standards of review | Comments Off on TX4 seemingly applies wrong standard of review to RS

NC: Consent sought while officer holding DL wasn’t voluntary because here it was an unlawful seizure

“Defendant’s main argument appears to be that when Officer Sletten failed to return defendant’s identification after finding no outstanding warrants and after the initial reason for the detention was satisfied, he instead requested defendant’s consent to search, the seizure was … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Seizure, Standards of review | Comments Off on NC: Consent sought while officer holding DL wasn’t voluntary because here it was an unlawful seizure

MA: Trial judge’s omission of significant facts made finding of no exigency error

The trial judge’s finding that there were no exigent circumstances is reversed. Her findings of fact omitted serious facts in support of exigency, and thus was clearly erroneous. Commonwealth v. Arias, 2017 Mass. App. LEXIS 148 (Nov. 9, 2017):

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Standards of review | Comments Off on MA: Trial judge’s omission of significant facts made finding of no exigency error