MD: Issue on appeal more nuanced and different that one presented to the trial court

Defendant’s issue on appeal is more nuanced, yet not the same as the one argued before the trial court, so there is no authority to decide it. So, the court does for the sake of argument, and it finds nexus. It also begs to know (it’s Moylan, after all) what SCOTUS meant in Leon by “conclusory” and “bare bones.” At any rate, this affidavit clearly is sufficient because it’s 29 pages detailing a drug investigation involving 50 officers and 13 wires. Joppy v. State, 2017 Md. App. LEXIS 420 (April 27, 2017). [Note: This is a problem we’ve all faced. In the haste [of some] to make out a motion to suppress, we file the motion and conduct the hearing expecting the proof to be one way, and then it’s different, perhaps raising other Fourth Amendment issues. We have to litigate all them and get a resolution for appeal. Also, resist the temptation to argue something different and better than you left on the table at the suppression hearing. If it’s waived, you can at least take a long shot at plain error, if your state even recognizes it. Mine doesn’t.]

This entry was posted in Good faith exception, Standards of review. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.