CA10: You can’t tell the court it needs to apply the independent source case law a certain way and then complain on appeal that it did what you asked

This case started with hotel housekeeping coming in to clean a room and seeing obvious drug paraphernalia. The police were called, and they were shown. A search warrant was prepared showing probable cause to connect defendants to the room by video of them entering the room (the hotel was connected to a casino so there was video). Defendants proposed to the district court a particular approach for applying the independent source doctrine in Murray. After the district court denied the motion to suppress, defendants appeal arguing that the district court misapplied Murray. This is invited error, and they can’t argue now the district court misapplied it. United States v. Amador, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 26061 (10th Cir. Sep. 14, 2018).

A search warrant included a tablet’s memory card for images (still and moving) of possible drug transactions. When officers searched the memory card they found child pornography. The motion to suppress only challenged moving images and not still images, so the argument still images were unconstitutionally obtained isn’t supported for appeal. In addition, the argument was conclusorily presented and the court won’t make the argument for him. Applegate v. Commonwealth, 2018 Ky. App. LEXIS 239 (Sep. 14, 2018).

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading, Burden of proof, Independent source, Scope of search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.