PA: ID made as a result of warrantless search suppressed, but that which was seen before may be testified to

An officer’s identification made wholly as a result of a warrantless search renders that identification tainted and inadmissible. If, however, eyewitness identification of a defendant occurred prior to illegal conduct by law enforcement may be admissible, if based on observations that are independent of the taint of the subsequent unconstitutional search. Commonwealth v. Santiago, 2019 Pa. LEXIS 3287 (June 18, 2019).

Defendant’s name was not on the Comcast IP account, although he lived at the address. He offers nothing to show standing in the account other than an attorney’s assertion that they all used it with knowledge of the other, but that’s not evidence. Moreover, he had no standing in the Comcast account third-party information. United States v. Barnes, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102006 (W.D. Wash. June 19, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Independent source, Standing, Third Party Doctrine. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.