LA5: All known issues need to be litigated in the first motion to suppress; no second bite at the apple

Defendant filed a motion to suppress the search warrant for lack of probable cause which was denied. Then, a year later, he filed a motion to suppress that the search was excessive and the police violated the terms of the warrant. “When defendant filed his second motion to suppress over a year later, defendant attempted to gain a second bite at the apple.” He should have pursued this issue in the first motion to suppress, and that makes it law of the case. State v. Falcon, 2014 La. App. LEXIS 628 (La. App. 5 Cir. March 12, 2014).

Defendant was in a fight in his barracks dorm room with his roommate and AFOSI was called. He was patted down, and a pill bottle and crusher were found with a hollowed out pen barrel. The military judge suppressed the search of the person, but not later statements. The court finds the later statements were attenuated from the prior search, and the statements were properly admitted. United States v. Milano, 2014 CCA LEXIS 162 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. March 11, 2014). [Note: A knife was found on the bed, but not within reach. Thus, a patdown and plain feel could have been issues, too, but they weren’t even discussed. The pill bottle presumably would not have been considered a weapon and not seizable at the time.]