N.D.Iowa: While issue preclusion applies in criminal cases, it was not applied here where prior search was for a gun and this was about CP

The search warrant that produced evidence in this case came from another case against the defendant where he fully litigated the search issue. Issue preclusion applies in civil and criminal cases. “The rule of collateral estoppel applies in criminal cases as well as civil cases, although in criminal cases, the rule ‘“is not to be applied with the hypertechnical and archaic approach of a 19th century pleading book, but with realism and rationality[.]”’ Untied States v. Torres-Villalobos, 487 F.3d 607, 617 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting Hernandez-Uribe v. United States, 515 F.2d 20, 22 (8th Cir. 1975)).” In the prior case, the subject was a shotgun. Here it was child pornography. The court goes to the merits of the search issue, and it finds that the search was by third-party consent. United States v. McManaman, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96106 (N.D. Iowa September 14, 2010).

Defendant’s bus encounter with the police in Shreveport was by consent. A dog had already alerted to defendant’s bag, but he didn’t know it. The officers asked to talk to him over in the baggage handling area, and he came with them. After some conversation, he was told the dog alerted, and he insisted he had no drugs in the bag. He consented to a search and a stolen gun was found, and he was under indictment. This was all by consent. United States v. McCurdy, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96501 (W.D. La. September 2, 2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.