CA7: Even though the 4A was complied with, if the question is relevance or prejudice, a motion in limine is proper, not a motion to suppress

Just because the Fourth Amendment was complied with doesn’t mean that the evidence seized is relevant (Rule 401) or the evidence could be more prejudicial than relevant (Rule 403). Then, suppression isn’t the remedy – a motion in limine is. United States v. Nelson, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 14931 (7th Cir. May 11, 2020) (see Treatise § 60.29 n.5).

A search warrant was executed at defendant’s house, and he came outside in shorts and sweatshirt and talked with the police. He was not arrested nor in custody for Miranda purposes. People v. Clark, 2020 CO 36, 2020 Colo. LEXIS 438 (May 11, 2020).

This entry was posted in Admissibility of evidence, Arrest or entry on arrest, Motion to suppress. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.