S.D.N.Y.: Even illegally seized evidence could be used at sentencing

Defendant’s claim of illegal search is moot for the trial because the government says it’s not using it. It could, however, come up at sentencing. “In United States v. Tejada, the Second Circuit held that ‘[a]bsent a showing that officers obtained evidence expressly to enhance a sentence, a district judge may not refuse to consider relevant evidence at sentencing, even if that evidence has been seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment.’ 956 F.2d 1256, 1263 (2d Cir. 1992); see also United States v. Johnson, 24 F. App’x 70, 72 (2d Cir. 2001) (‘A district court is required to consider all relevant evidence at sentencing, even if unconstitutionally obtained.’). The Court need not, therefore, rule on whether the Apartment search violated the Fourth Amendment, because even if it so found, the Court would still be required to consider this evidence at sentencing.” United States v. Arias-Casilla, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118960 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2022).

A driver of a rental car with a suspended license has standing, but the search of the car was still lawful under the inventory exception. United States v. Cohen, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 18570 (11th Cir. July 6, 2022).*

Six months was not stale in a child pornography case. United States v. Vincent, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119000 (N.D. Ga. July 6, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Inventory, Staleness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.