CA11: Apparent consent for 5:30 am entry defeats “egregious” 4A violation for exclusion in immigration removal

Petitioner’s declaration did not make a prima facie case of an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment to preclude evidence in his removal proceeding. The entry was at 5:30 am, but there was also evidence of consent to the entry. That alone defeats the claim. Batres-Garay v. U.S. Attorney General, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 23754 (11th Cir. Aug. 23, 2018).

Civil forfeiture default was set aside. “The trial court erred as a matter of law because it focused only on what the money was to be used for and not whether there was probable cause to trace the money to any drug offense, and because it failed to give the requisite deference to Philogene’s proffered defense that, in effect, the cash had a legitimate source.” State v. Philogene, 2018 ME 126, 2018 Me. LEXIS 129 (Aug. 23, 2018).*

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Forfeiture, Immigration arrests. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.