Daily Archives: April 6, 2018

OR: State’s inventory argument wasn’t presented during the suppression hearing, so it’s waived

The state’s inventory argument was not presented during the suppression hearing, and it can’t rely on that argument on appeal. State v. Steele, 290 Ore. App. 675, 2018 Ore. App. LEXIS 41 (Mar. 7, 2018). By letting the CI into … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Standards of review | Comments Off on OR: State’s inventory argument wasn’t presented during the suppression hearing, so it’s waived

CA8: Stop of car apparently leaving scene of crime was valid

There was reasonable suspicion for defendant’s stop based on the fact the vehicle matched the description of one leaving the scene of a robbery by time and proximity, too. United States v. Daniel, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 8504 (8th Cir. … Continue reading

Posted in Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA8: Stop of car apparently leaving scene of crime was valid

S.D.Ohio: This SW affidavit was adequate and different than co-def’s SW affidavit where it was suppressed

The affidavit for the search warrant as to this defendant adequately demonstrated probable cause. The fact the codefendant’s search warrant lacked probable cause isn’t binding on this search warrant. United States v. Damondo, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57204 (S.D. Ohio … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Particularity | Comments Off on S.D.Ohio: This SW affidavit was adequate and different than co-def’s SW affidavit where it was suppressed

D.Minn.: Statement is suppressed, but def’s giving up passcode to cell phone is not

While defendant’s statement is suppressed, his giving up the passcode to his cell phone is not, so the search of the cell phone was by consent. United States v. Jackson, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55965 (D. Minn. Feb. 27, 2018):

Posted in Cell phones | Comments Off on D.Minn.: Statement is suppressed, but def’s giving up passcode to cell phone is not

MI: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in child protective proceedings

The exclusionary rule does not apply in child protective proceedings. In re Kirschner, 2018 Mich. App. LEXIS 1093 (Apr. 3, 2018):

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on MI: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in child protective proceedings