DE: Actual presence of accused not required for suppression hearing and video appearance constitutional

A virtual suppression hearing that was a mixed question of law and fact didn’t require the actual presence of the accused under the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause, following United States v. Rosenschein, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129889 (D.N.M. July 23, 2020). On the merits of the motion to suppress, defendant prevails because Probation and Parole didn’t show that this search was reasonable under state law. State v. Kolaco, 2020 Del. Super. LEXIS 2984 (Dec. 14, 2020).

“Here, the affidavit’s description of the positive dog sniff and its representation that Detective Irvin and Jackson were certified was, on its own, sufficient to support probable cause for the search warrant at issue.” United States v. Hussein, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 234205 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2020),* adopted, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233289 (D. Minn. Dec. 11, 2020).*

Touching the yellow line was reasonably understood to be a violation of state law and that justified the stop. United States v. Cruz, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 39367 (10th Cir. Dec. 14, 2020).*

This entry was posted in Dog sniff, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion, Suppression hearings. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.