CA2: Admission of removability obviates exclusionary rule claim

While egregious violations of the Fourth Amendment may be excludable in removal proceedings, a concession of removability that is an act of free will is an independent source for removal. Vanegas-Ramirez v. Holder, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 18351 (2d Cir. September 25, 2014)

Defendant’s stop and patdown was legally justified, and the patdown produced a valid plain feel of drugs. State v. Arrasmith, 2014-Ohio-4173, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 4091 (12th Dist. September 22, 2014).*

State troopers were transporting prisoners and stopped for gas. “Hamilton finished fueling his vehicle and was preparing to leave the gas station when a disheveled and foul smelling Harwell approached him and expressed an interest in becoming a state trooper.” Because they take the names of those who ask, the officer asked for defendant’s license and called it in but didn’t ask to have it run. Dispatch ran it on their own and it came back suspended. Things went downhill from there. Defendant was from NY, but his story about visiting a sick uncle in Ohio didn’t make sense. Reasonable suspicion developed and a drug dog was called for. It took a while to get there, but the officer was otherwise diligent, and the motion to suppress was properly denied. State v. Harwell, 2014-Ohio-4176, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 4093 (12th Dist. September 22, 2014).*

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Independent source, Stop and frisk. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.