Daily Archives: February 3, 2022

Reason: A SWAT Team Wrongfully Raided Her Home. Now Cops Say Footage From the Raid Is Private Since No One Was Killed.

Reason: A SWAT Team Wrongfully Raided Her Home. Now Cops Say Footage From the Raid Is Private Since No One Was Killed, by Elizabeth Nolan Brown (“In May 2020, a SWAT team burst into the Raleigh, North Carolina, home that … Continue reading

Posted in Body cameras, Warrant execution | Comments Off on Reason: A SWAT Team Wrongfully Raided Her Home. Now Cops Say Footage From the Raid Is Private Since No One Was Killed.

TX: Exclusionary rule is statutory and harmless error analysis required

The Texas exclusionary rule is statutory and not a constitutional remedy since 1922. Thus, harmless error analysis is required, and the case remanded for that. Holder v. State, 2022 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 72 (Feb. 2, 2022). “Accordingly, under the … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Plain view, feel, smell, Probation / Parole search, Seizure | Comments Off on TX: Exclusionary rule is statutory and harmless error analysis required

NC: Objection to seized evidence without a motion to suppress is waiver

Defendant objected at trial to admission of evidence, but it was not a timely motion to suppress. It is waived. State v. Draughon, 2022-NCCOA-58, 2022 N.C. App. LEXIS 53 (Feb. 1, 2022). Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not moving to … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Waiver | Comments Off on NC: Objection to seized evidence without a motion to suppress is waiver

CA5: 17-day delay of package for investigation and SW was still reasonable

This 17-day delay in holding a package for investigation and developing probable cause for a search warrant was not unreasonable. There was reasonable suspicion for the initial detention, and, despite the delay, it was still reasonable. United States v. Martinez, … Continue reading

Posted in Mail and packages, Reasonableness, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA5: 17-day delay of package for investigation and SW was still reasonable

D.Md.: Six-year delay in getting SW for cell phone unreasonable

Officers had defendant’s cell phone for nearly six years from 2015 to 2020, and he was in custody for much of the time. Searching the cell phone six years after seizure was unreasonable. United States v. Briscoe, 2022 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Reasonableness | Comments Off on D.Md.: Six-year delay in getting SW for cell phone unreasonable

D.S.D.: RS lacking: nervousness not enough, and remainder was minimal

USMJ’s report is rejected in part. On the reasonable suspicion finding: “Here, the government relies on several factors to establish reasonable suspicion. The court has found that some of these factors, such as the visibly pulsing heartbeat and rapid breathing, … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.S.D.: RS lacking: nervousness not enough, and remainder was minimal

IL: Officer’s interpretation of lane movement statute was unreasonable and stop suppressed

Defendant’s move within his lane was clearly not a violation of the lane change statute, so the stop based on that was not objectively reasonable. The product of the stop is suppressed. People v. Jackson, 2022 IL App (3d) 190621, … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonableness, Standards of review | Comments Off on IL: Officer’s interpretation of lane movement statute was unreasonable and stop suppressed

W.D.Okla.: Whether 14A or 4A applies to ptf’s excessive force claim on arrest before PC found by judicial officer, result the same

Plaintiff’s excessive force claim occurred after arrest but before a judicial determination of probable cause. “If so, Mr. Willis would not have been a pretrial detainee for purposes of Plaintiff’s excessive force claim. However, because the parties characterize him as … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Excessive force | Comments Off on W.D.Okla.: Whether 14A or 4A applies to ptf’s excessive force claim on arrest before PC found by judicial officer, result the same

NM: Dismissal of § 1983 excessive force case was not collateral estoppel for a state tort claims act case

Dismissal of a § 1983 excessive force case in federal court was not collateral estoppel for a state case under the state tort claims act. Hernandez v. Parker, 2022 N.M. App. LEXIS 5 (Feb. 1, 2022). Extending this stop was … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Excessive force, Issue preclusion, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on NM: Dismissal of § 1983 excessive force case was not collateral estoppel for a state tort claims act case