OH9: A challenge to evidence under the rules of evidence is brought by a motion in limine, not a motion to suppress

A challenge to evidence under the rules of evidence is brought by a motion in limine, not a motion to suppress. That’s for constitutional grounds. State v. Johnson, 2015-Ohio-3449, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 3327 (9th Dist. August 26, 2015).

One defendant’s cell phone was subjected to a warrantless search and there was no objection at trial to the incriminating text messages. Riley was decided after conviction, and there is no plain error viewing the case from the perspective of harmless error. There was plenty of other evidence of guilt of the conversations besides the text messages. Without some error, it can’t be plain error. [No mention of good faith in reliance on older law.] United States v. Blackman, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15280 (6th Cir. August 27, 2015).*

The government’s motion to reconsider the granting of the motion to suppress is a rehash of its prior argument already rejected. United States v. Silva-Rentas, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114823 (D.P.R. August 27, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Motion to suppress. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.