E.D.Mich.: Court grants suppression hearing on state law violations, even though it may not be relevant

Because circuit case law is unclear on whether a violation of state law is relevant [it likely won’t be under Virginia v. Moore], defendant gets a suppression hearing. United States v. Watkins, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4037 (E.D. Mich. January 14, 2015)*:

The court concludes that a hearing is necessary to determine (1) whether the officers acted beyond their statutory authority in arresting Watkins, and, if so, (2) whether the extraterritorial arrest violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. Cf. United States v. Evans, 581 F.3d 333, 340 (6th Cir. 2009) (addressing a similar issue in dicta). Compare United States v. Wright, 16 F.3d 1429, 1437 (6th Cir. 1994) (“[T]he appropriate inquiry for a federal court considering a motion to suppress evidence seized by state police officers is whether the arrest, search, or seizure violated the Fourth Amendment. The fact that the arrest, search, or seizure may have violated state law is irrelevant as long as the standards developed under the Federal Constitution were not offended.”) with United States v. Master, 614 F.3d 236, 239 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding that, where a warrant is invalid because the issuing judge did not have authority under state law to authorize the warrant, it “is invalid because it does not comply with the Fourth Amendment”). At the hearing, the parties should further argue these points. If the parties have additional evidence relevant to resolving these issues, such evidence may be presented during the hearing. A party expecting to present any more than about 30 minutes of witness testimony should notify the court’s case manager to work out the scheduling implications.