Conclusory motion to suppress is denied without a hearing

The Western District of Texas at El Paso rejected a conclusory motion to suppress without granting a hearing. No facts were alleged on which a Fourth Amendment violation could be based. United States v. Alvarez, 542 F. Supp. 2d 597 (W.D. Tex. 2008)*:

The Court finds that Defendant fails to allege facts sufficient to justify an evidentiary hearing. He only offers conclusory allegations that the law enforcement officers’ actions were illegal and violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Defendant does not provide any facts to support his allegations, and certainly does not set forth specific or detailed factual allegations warranting an evidentiary hearing. See, e.g., United States v. Dean, 100 F.3d 19, 21 (5th Cir. 1996) (affirming denial of evidentiary hearing on motion for return of seized funds where the defendant alleged that funds were improperly seized, but provided no facts to support the claim); United States v. Cannon, No. CRIM.A. 03-119, 2003 WL 21406180, at *1 (E.D. La. June 16, 2003) (denying request for evidentiary hearing where the defendant offered only conclusory allegations that the Government violated his Fourth Amendment rights, but failed to support the claims with facts or law justifying relief). Accordingly, Defendant’s request for an evidentiary hearing is denied.

Officer had probable cause for a traffic stop, and the few minutes it took for a drug dog to arrive after defendant refused to consent was not unreasonable. United States v. Hassler, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31527 (E.D. Tenn. April 15, 2008).*

Colorado follows Greenwood under the state constitution and holds that there is no expectation of privacy in trash at the curb side for collection. State v. Laurent, 186 P.3d 118 (Colo. App. 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.