Consent found valid because defendant’s co-defendant refused to testify at the suppression hearing

Defendant moved to suppress challenging his co-defendant’s consent as involuntary. The co-defendant took the Fifth at the suppression hearing and that left only the officer’s testimony, so the trial court found it was by consent. United States v. Bruce, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54786 (W.D. Wis. July 26, 2007):

Bruce moved to suppress the crack and cash recovered from 5187 Chester Circle on the ground that Detective Rietzler coerced Endia Matthews into consenting to this search. Matthews, however, asserted her Fifth Amendment privilege and declined to testify at the evidentiary hearing, so there is no factual support for Bruce’s claim.

Comment: Testimony about standing is privileged from use at trial against a party under the Simmons rule. How this happened I cannot quite figure out, but the defense lawyers should have gotten together on this. What if the co-defendant testifies at her own suppression hearing and establishes defendant’s standing? I would expect that he could reopen his own with the new testimony.

Defendant claimed that he denied consent, so officers seeking consent from wife was void under Randolph. Officers testified that he gave consent and they went and got it from her, too. The court credits the officer’s testimony. United States v. Hudson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54934 (N.D. Ill. July 26, 2007).*

Class certification granted case against Department of Homeland Security for allegedly abusive border detentions of U.S. citizens. Rahman v. Chertoff, 244 F.R.D. 443 (N.D. Ill. 2007):

The named plaintiffs, on behalf of all others similarly situated, have sued various government officials seeking declaratory and injunctive relief because defendants’ policies and practices, which purportedly cause repeated, lengthy and abusive border detentions of innocent U.S. citizens, allegedly violate their civil rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Before the Court is defendants’ objection to Magistrate Judge Sidney I. Schenkier’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in which he recommends that the Court certify two classes.

In a police officer’s employment dispute with his department, officers entered his home without a warrant, seized property, and put it into the department’s property room. This stated a claim under the Fourth Amendment, and the use of the property room was arguably state action. Roemer v. City of Dayton, 496 F. Supp. 2d 873 (S.D. Ohio 2007).*

A warrantless entry on probable cause plaintiff had explosives in his house in violation of city ordinance justified an entry and gave the officers qualified immunity. Graham v. City of Cincinnati, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55015 (S.D. Ohio July 30, 2007).*

Plaintiffs’ claims that their right to privacy was being violated by their being photographed on their property from the street was dismissed. Kane v. Village of Southern View, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54980 (S.D. Ill. July 27, 2007).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.