CA7: Davis GFE saves pre-Jardines-type search

Defendant was remanded for resentencing, and he sought to reopen his suppression hearing in light of Jardines. Agreeing that a “change in the law” can justify departure from the mandate of reversal, defendant loses on the Jardines argument because it is foreclosed already in this circuit by Davis. Circuit law authorized the police conduct prior to Jardines, so the search there was in good faith. United States v. Herman, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 19345 (7th Cir. October 10, 2014).*

During defendant’s police interrogation, he was asked if he’d consent to a search of his house. And, if he had more drugs and weapons there they wouldn’t pile more charges on. Defendant denied having more and consented, but drugs were found. The officer didn’t get consent by a false promise based on defendant’s denial. United States v. White, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144307 (N.D. Ind. October 10, 2014), R&R 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145926 (N.D. Ind. July 16, 2014).*

Eyewitness information of defendant’s involvement plus CIs’ information plus defendant’s admission he was at the scene was sufficient to provide probable cause for defendant’s arrest. State v. Brown, 2014 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 945 (October 9, 2014).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Consent, Dog sniff, Good faith exception. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.