M.D.Pa.: State law was more protective than the 4A when the case was in state court, but it doesn’t apply in federal court

While state law was more protective of privacy rights and this case started as a state investigation, state law would not be applied to the motion to suppress the search. Only federal law applies. United States v. Capozzi, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55075 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 25, 2019).

“The Court will not exclude the evidence obtained from Serna, because the Court concludes that Silva had reasonable suspicion for seizing Serna. The Court concludes that Silva seized Serna when Silva ordered Serna to keep his hands visible and that Silva had reasonable suspicion that justified seizing Serna, because Silva (i) observed an individual known to engage in drug trafficking; (ii) engaged in a hand to hand exchange of cash; (iii) in a park known as a site for drug trafficking. In the following analysis, the Court discusses first at what moment Silva seized Serna, because the timing influences what facts the Court will consider in analyzing Silva’s reasonable suspicion. The Court then turns to whether Silva had reasonable suspicion to support the seizure.” United States v. Serna, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59095 (D. N.M. Apr. 5, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Choice of law, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.