KS: Warning officers about self-incrimination at suppression hearing deterrent enough; no exclusion

Kansas police officers can go outside their jurisdiction when requested to do so. Kansas statute implies an exclusionary remedy. Here, the officers appear to have violated the statute, but the district court warned the officers against self-incrimination at the hearing on the motion. The warning was stronger than the exclusionary rule, which is not applied. In re J.O., 2018 Kan. LEXIS 361 (July 27, 2018).

Probable cause for an anticipatory warrant included the fact that defendant received 58 international packages at his address in less than two years. United States v. Calligan, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126897 (N.D. Ind. June 28, 2018),* adopted, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126476 (N.D. Ind. July 30, 2018),* reconsideration denied, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140596 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 20, 2018).*

This entry was posted in Anticipatory warrant, Exclusionary rule. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.