Indiana trash pull that violated Litchfield and led to search warrant was still saved by good faith exception

Indiana holds that a search warrant based on a trash pull in violation of Litchfield but otherwise in good faith under Leon would not be suppressed. Bowles v. State, 867 N.E.2d 242 (Ind. App. 2007):

We conclude that police lacked reasonable suspicion to search Bowles’ trash as is required under Litchfield and, therefore, issuance of a search warrant based on what was found in the trash was improper. However, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule fully applies in this case because police clearly relied on the warrant in objective good faith under the legal standards in existence at the time. The trial court did not err in admitting the evidence recovered under the search warrant.

Fourth Amendment claim by state prison inmate concerning a search of his cell for his legal materials fails as a matter of law because the Fourth Amendment does not apply in prison. McNeil-El v. Digulielmo, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39528 (E.D. Pa. May 30, 2007):

[T]he Amended Complaint describes an incident in which Officers Soto and White searched Plaintiff’s prison cell and seized certain materials. n9 It is clear, however, that “the Fourth Amendment proscription against unreasonable searches does not apply within the confines of the prison cell.” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526 (1984). This is because the traditional notion of a right of privacy “is fundamentally incompatible with the close and continual surveillance of inmates and their cells required to ensure institutional security and internal order.” Id. at 527-28. The Supreme Court held that “wholly random searches are essential to the effective security of penal institutions,” and do not violate an inmate’s Fourth Amendment rights. Id. at 529. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim must fail.

Motion to suppress sending seized clothing to the crime lab for testing raised during trial was determined by the trial court to be untimely and unmeritorious. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the motion was waived. Young v. State, 2007 Ark. LEXIS 340 (May 31, 2007). Comment: Waiver for an untimely motion should not woodenly be applied, for that was an issue in Kimmelman v. Morrison, where a motion was raised during trial when a newly discovered fact arose. Here, it would have been better to have just denied the motion on the merits because it was clearly unmeritorious.

Viewing the VIN of a vehicle that required opening the door of a car was reasonable under the Idaho Constitution, following New York v. Class. State v. Metzger, 144 Idaho 397, 162 P.3d 776 (2007).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.