Daily Archives: July 18, 2018

PA: Trial court’s deciding to suppress based on an argument not made by def was error

Trial court’s deciding to suppress based on an argument not made by defendant was error. Commonwealth v. Jones, 2018 PA Super 208, 2018 Pa. Super. LEXIS 815 (July 17, 2018). Defendant argues in post-conviction proceedings against the trial court’s ruling … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Ineffective assistance, Nexus | Comments Off on PA: Trial court’s deciding to suppress based on an argument not made by def was error

CA9: Nominal damages for 20 min detention supported by evidence

“A jury could reasonably find that the Kovacics suffered no actual damages from an unreasonable search of the home. See George v. City of Long Beach, 973 F.2d 706, 708-09 (9th Cir. 1992). Although Jared Kovacic was detained for 20 … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens | Comments Off on CA9: Nominal damages for 20 min detention supported by evidence

N.D.Ga.: Govt bore burden of proof on inevitable discovery and failed; weak hearsay not credited

The issue of inevitable discovery was treated as an aside by the government, although it bore the burden of proof on it. It seeks the use of hearsay on inevitable discovery that was hard to credit considering the posture of … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Inevitable discovery | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: Govt bore burden of proof on inevitable discovery and failed; weak hearsay not credited

N.D.Ala.: Def’s continued detention in traffic stop without RS required suppression

The officer continued the stop without reasonable cause and testified he decided to search the car only because he was concerned about officer safety and not getting shot. But, the search didn’t occur until well into the stop [and was … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on N.D.Ala.: Def’s continued detention in traffic stop without RS required suppression

N.D.Ohio: Under Franks, materiality of the omitted info to PC is required, not just that it was omitted

“Hill argues Agent Fulmer’s affidavit omitted information previously obtained during the investigation and which was contained in an affidavit submitted with a wiretap application filed in the Eastern District of Michigan in December 2016. Hill, however, does not explain how … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Probable cause | Comments Off on N.D.Ohio: Under Franks, materiality of the omitted info to PC is required, not just that it was omitted