CA9: Motion to suppress after conviction wasn’t timely

Defendant’s motion to suppress her cell phone search two weeks after conviction wasn’t timely, and no good cause shown. Riley being decided after her conviction is not “good cause.” United States v. Gonzalez, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14298 (9th Cir. Aug. 4, 2016).* (Besides, won’t she lose under Davis?)

Police had been receiving information for a long time about defendant’s alleged drug dealing, so they did a trash pull and found incriminating evidence [considerably more than the usual trash pull that I’ve seen]. The information was not stale because the drug operation was ongoing. United States v. Smith, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14418 (10th Cir. Aug. 5, 2016).*

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

Comments are closed.