Category Archives: Standards of review

FL2 sua sponte raises lack of standing on the record and remands

“The State appeals the trial court’s order granting Ricardo Fernandez’s motion to suppress after the trial court found the affidavit used to obtain the anticipatory search warrant was deficient and the good faith exception to the warrant requirement did not … Continue reading →

Posted in Standards of review, Standing | Comments Off on FL2 sua sponte raises lack of standing on the record and remands

CA8: Being a passenger in a stolen vehicle justifies a patdown for weapons

Defendant’s riding in a stolen car permits a patdown. “Further, to the extent Brooks argues questioning occurred before the frisk and exceeded the permissible scope of a Terry stop, we conclude that the officers were not required to give Miranda … Continue reading →

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Standards of review | Comments Off on CA8: Being a passenger in a stolen vehicle justifies a patdown for weapons

N.D.Iowa: SW affidavit was sloppy and partly misleading, but not intentionally so

“A substantial basis existed for the court to determine probable cause existed on the face of the warrant affidavit.” It was, however, sloppy and partly misleading, but, on the totality there is no Franks violation. United States v. Johnson, 2020 … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Standards of review | Comments Off on N.D.Iowa: SW affidavit was sloppy and partly misleading, but not intentionally so

OH6: When lack of PC for a SW is the issue, a suppression hearing isn’t required: it’s a question of law

When the defendant moves to suppress a search warrant claiming only a lack of probable cause, a hearing isn’t required. It’s then a mixed question of law and fact (mostly law). State v. Holt, 2020-Ohio-6649, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 4515 … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Standards of review, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on OH6: When lack of PC for a SW is the issue, a suppression hearing isn’t required: it’s a question of law

PA: On PCR, def has to call the third-party consenter as a witness to attempt to show lack of consent

On post-conviction review, defendant didn’t call as a witness the person who consented to the entry to testify that she did so involuntarily. Therefore, he failed in his burden of proof. Defendant was properly subjected to a DV arrest, even … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Inventory, Standards of review | Comments Off on PA: On PCR, def has to call the third-party consenter as a witness to attempt to show lack of consent

CA8 finds stop valid for grounds not relied on by Dist. Ct.

“The government defends the district court’s rationale, but argues alternatively that other facts independently provided reasonable suspicion to seize LaGrange in the restaurant parking area. We may affirm the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress on any ground … Continue reading →

Posted in Standards of review, Waiver | Comments Off on CA8 finds stop valid for grounds not relied on by Dist. Ct.

IL: Ct of Apps erred in reaching 4A claim in civil discovery dispute involving state AG when it didn’t have to

This case involves a civil discovery dispute between the state and a recycling business for an environmental inspection. The court of appeals erred in jumping to a Fourth Amendment claim without attempting to decide the case on nonconstitutional grounds under … Continue reading →

Posted in Administrative search, Reasonable suspicion, Standards of review | Comments Off on IL: Ct of Apps erred in reaching 4A claim in civil discovery dispute involving state AG when it didn’t have to

OH11: Trial court’s order denying unsealing SW affidavit in post-conviction case wasn’t final and appealable

In a post-conviction case, the trial court’s order denying a motion to unseal a search warrant affidavit to facilitate his case was not a final appealable order. State v. Miller, 2020-Ohio-5383, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 4231 (11th Dist. Nov. 23, … Continue reading →

Posted in Good faith exception, Probable cause, Standards of review, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on OH11: Trial court’s order denying unsealing SW affidavit in post-conviction case wasn’t final and appealable

UT: When two grounds support an arrest, attacking only one means affirmance

“Devenpeck, along with Utah appellate law, is controlling here. Whether Officer possessed probable cause to arrest Sanchez for DUI is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the objective circumstances—the ‘known facts,’ see Devenpeck, 543 U.S. at 153—provided probable cause for … Continue reading →

Posted in Probable cause, Standards of review | Comments Off on UT: When two grounds support an arrest, attacking only one means affirmance

OH10: Anonymous 911 call didn’t support def’s stop

A 911 anonymous tipster’s call wasn’t justification for defendant’s stop because it was wrong as to clothing and it essentially described all the black men in the area. State v. Walton, 2020-Ohio-5062, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 3906 (10th Dist. Oct. … Continue reading →

Posted in Excessive force, Good faith exception, Plain view, feel, smell, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, Standards of review | Comments Off on OH10: Anonymous 911 call didn’t support def’s stop

CA2: CIs don’t need “a track record of reliability” when shown otherwise reliable

The CI was described in the affidavit for the warrant as “reliable,” but didn’t elaborate. “Circuit precedent does not require informants to have a track record of reliability. … Here, where the informant testified under oath before the issuing judge … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Standards of review | Comments Off on CA2: CIs don’t need “a track record of reliability” when shown otherwise reliable

Specific objection to 4A USMJ’s R&R required or waived

“Mr. Stewart did not object to the Recommended Disposition regarding whether the inevitable discovery doctrine would have led to the discovery of his felon status and unlawful possession of a weapon. When no objections are made this Court is not … Continue reading →

Posted in Standards of review | Comments Off on Specific objection to 4A USMJ’s R&R required or waived

S.D.Ga.: Where def lost 4A claim on merits, he can’t relitigate it as an IAC claim

“Petitioner already presented his suppression argument to the Eleventh Circuit, and it was rejected. He now attempts to relitigate the claim by cloaking it in an ineffective assistance claim. However, Petitioner fails to establish Mr. Crowder’s decision not to pursue … Continue reading →

Posted in Automobile exception, Ineffective assistance, Standards of review | Comments Off on S.D.Ga.: Where def lost 4A claim on merits, he can’t relitigate it as an IAC claim

CA6: Because def’s car would be towed and inventoried anyway, officer’s comments at time of seizure not determinative

Because defendant’s car would be towed and inventoried in any event after his stop, it didn’t matter what the officer said at the time. United States v. Snoddy, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 30512 (6th Cir. Sept. 24, 2020). “While Williams … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Inventory, Standards of review | Comments Off on CA6: Because def’s car would be towed and inventoried anyway, officer’s comments at time of seizure not determinative

CA11: Officers executing a SW at a house can approach an occupied car parked out front

“The district court did not err by denying Turner’s motion to suppress. Delgado was entitled, ‘without any level of suspicion,’ to approach a car in a dangerous locale with an unknown number of occupants parked near a residence where he … Continue reading →

Posted in Motion to suppress, Seizure, Standards of review, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA11: Officers executing a SW at a house can approach an occupied car parked out front

E.D.Va.: SW authorized search of safe in house even though in room of another occupant

The search warrant authorized a search of a safe in a house even though the room it was in wasn’t occupied by the target of the search. The search warrant wasn’t stale because the drug activities it refers to were … Continue reading →

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Scope of search, Standards of review | Comments Off on E.D.Va.: SW authorized search of safe in house even though in room of another occupant

CA10: Where wrong standard of review applied below, undisputed facts allow appellate court to still decide

“Because the evidence presented by the government at the evidentiary hearing in this case was largely undisputed, we conclude that the district court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous, and that its misapplication of the standard of review does not … Continue reading →

Posted in Plain view, feel, smell, Standards of review | Comments Off on CA10: Where wrong standard of review applied below, undisputed facts allow appellate court to still decide

W.D.Wash.: Govt doesn’t need SW to search its own records

The government doesn’t need a search warrant to search its own records. No case says anything like that, and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the private sense. United States v. Fanyo-Patchou, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155998 (W.D. … Continue reading →

Posted in Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion, Standards of review | Comments Off on W.D.Wash.: Govt doesn’t need SW to search its own records

MS: Def’s consent moots his lack of PC claim

Defendant’s claim of lack of probable cause goes unanswered because there is plenty of evidence of consent. Harris v. State, 2020 Miss. App. LEXIS 499 (Aug. 25, 2020):*

Posted in Standards of review | Comments Off on MS: Def’s consent moots his lack of PC claim

TX7: Trial court’s initially misstating burden of proof was on def was corrected in the ultimate findings

The trial court first stated that the burden on consent was on the defendant, but the ultimate findings of fact and conclusions of law concluded that the state proved it by sufficient evidence. This corrected the previous mistake, and the … Continue reading →

Posted in Automobile exception, Plain view, feel, smell, Search incident, Standards of review | Comments Off on TX7: Trial court’s initially misstating burden of proof was on def was corrected in the ultimate findings