D.Minn.: USMJ who issues SW doesn’t have to recuse from deciding motion to suppress

The USMJ who issued the search warrant doesn’t need to recuse from deciding on a motion to suppress that warrant. “The Court also concludes that Strieff controls the analysis of Defendant’s challenge to his stop in Rock Island, Illinois. In Strieff, the United States Supreme Court held ‘that the evidence the officer seized as part of the search incident to arrest is admissible because the officer’s discovery of the arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the evidence seized incident to arrest.’ 136 S. Ct. at 2059. A hearing on the constitutionality of the stop is therefore unnecessary because even assuming the stop was unconstitutional, the cell phones collected from Defendant during the arrest are admissible as evidence seized incident to arrest.” There was probable cause to seize the phones. United States v. Mathis, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145380 (D. Minn. Aug. 27, 2018).

Defendant claimed standing in the car he was in by claiming a possessory interest. Only he didn’t. United States v. Dixon, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 23951 (11th Cir. Aug. 24, 2018).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Cell phones, Neutral and detached magistrate. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.