CA8: Losing a suppression motion then saying “no objection” to admission at trial is a waiver of suppression issue

Saying “no objection” when evidence the subject of a lost suppression motion is offered at trial is a waiver of the suppression motion. Thus, the issue had to be viewed under clear error. United States v. Comstock, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 14489 (8th Cir. July 8, 2008):

At trial, each time the Government moved to admit evidence that Defendant’s pretrial motion sought to suppress (namely, the firearms and ammunition seized from Defendant’s home), defense counsel stated “no objection.” “Normally the denial of a pretrial motion to suppress evidence preserves the objection for appeal and defense counsel need not renew the objection at trial.” United States v. Johnson, 906 F.2d 1285, 1290 (8th Cir. 1990); accord Lawn v. United States, 355 U.S. 339, 353 (1958) (denial of suppression motion by the trial court generally “preserves the point and renders it unnecessary again to object when such evidence is offered at trial”). Yet, this Court has “found pretrial objections waived when an appellant’s counsel affirmatively stated ‘no objection’ at trial to the admission of evidence previously sought to be suppressed.” United States v. Gonzalez-Rodriguez, 239 F.3d 948, 951 (8th Cir. 2001) (emphasis added); Johnson, 906 F.2d at 1290. This is precisely what occurred here. As such, we hold Defendant “consciously and intentionally waived any objection” to the district court’s receipt of the evidence at issue in his pretrial suppression motion. United States v. Wedelstedt, 589 F.2d 339, 345-46 (8th Cir. 1978).

In any event, reviewing the district court’s factual determinations for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo, Defendant’s position is unavailing.

Defendant was arrested by ATF on a warrant, and a consent to search the house was signed. A safe was found, and it was not within the consent. When asked about the safe, everybody inside disavowed it. Defendant was asked three separate times. Therefore, the safe was abandoned property, and it could be opened. United States v. Anderson, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 14465 (3d Cir. July 3, 2008) (unpublished).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.