NV: Illegally recorded conversation by recorder in child’s backpack can be used by expert in child custody proceeding

In this child custody case, the father put a recording device in the child’s backpack to record the child’s interactions with the mother. While the recording violated state law, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting an expert to have the recording to assist in the custody matter. Abm v. Abid, 133 Nev. Adv. Rep. 94, 2017 Nev. LEXIS 123 (Dec. 7, 2017).

In Hawai’i, failure to rule on a motion to suppress is reversible error. [In my state, the defense has to get the ruling or it’s waived.] State v. Tokunaga, 2017 Haw. App. LEXIS 481 (Dec. 6, 2017)* (memorandum).

Whether a state court had the power to reconsider a motion to suppress is a state law question not cognizable in habeas. Craighead v. Bear, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 24710 (10th Cir. Dec. 7, 2017).*

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

Comments are closed.