FL1: Law of the case doesn’t preclude state from another bite overcoming suppression when there’s a change in law

On remand post-Heien, the law of the case didn’t bar the state from approaching the suppression issue from a different tack because of a change in the law. State v. Thomas, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16235 (Fla. 1st DCA Nov. 2, 2016).

Defendant illegally parked in a handicapped zone, and that justified his stop and detention. Then reasonable suspicion developed. United States v. Alvarado, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139779 (D.Ore. Oct. 7, 2016).*

The Franks prong of defendant’s motion to suppress is denied on the merits because he didn’t show enough falsity to be material or reckless. The video of defendant’s interview at the criminal justice center shows defendant consented to the search of his cell phone. United States v. Wood, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150161 (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 31, 2016).*

This entry was posted in Consent. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.