Daily Archives: March 4, 2019

FL2: Search incident for being in a city park after hours unreasonable

A custodial arrest for being in a city park after closing time and a search incident was invalid. State law cautions against search incident for noncriminal violations. Nelson v. State, 2019 Fla. App. LEXIS 3159 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 1, … Continue reading

Posted in Informant hearsay, Probable cause, Search incident | Comments Off on FL2: Search incident for being in a city park after hours unreasonable

CA7: RS existed for defs’ stop despite others had been stopped, too: “Terry does not authorize broad dragnets, but it also does not require perfection or precision.”

On the totality, officers had reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop of defendants for being involved in an armed robbery. He was near the scene, walking away, although he matched the description by race and gender. Moreover, two other men … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on CA7: RS existed for defs’ stop despite others had been stopped, too: “Terry does not authorize broad dragnets, but it also does not require perfection or precision.”

S.D.Fla.: IAC claim approached similar to GFE for the defense lawyer under Strickland

Defendant filed a 2255 that defense counsel was ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress the search of his RV on the curtilage in a child pornography case. The warrant mentioned curtilage. The case law goes both ways, and … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance | Comments Off on S.D.Fla.: IAC claim approached similar to GFE for the defense lawyer under Strickland

LA2: Failure to return papers to the clerk or court does not warrant suppression

The searching officer’s failure to file the return of the paperwork with the court is not a constitutional violation requiring suppression of the search warrant. State v. Hardyway, 2019 La. App. LEXIS 320 (La. App. 2 Cir. Feb. 27, 2019). … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Warrant execution | Comments Off on LA2: Failure to return papers to the clerk or court does not warrant suppression

S.D.Ind.: Once there’s an indictment, a motion to suppress evidence is used rather than a motion for return of property

“Where, as here, an indictment has been filed and criminal proceedings are ongoing, the proper means for seeking return of seized property and to challenge the constitutionality of a search is a motion to suppress evidence.” United States v. Flick, … Continue reading

Posted in Mail and packages, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on S.D.Ind.: Once there’s an indictment, a motion to suppress evidence is used rather than a motion for return of property