IN: After federal court suppressed search, feds hand case off to state; no preclusive effect from federal suppression

Under dual sovereignty, the federal court’s suppression of evidence in defendant’s federal criminal case had no preclusive effect on a following state court prosecution. The identity of the parties was different. On the merits, the state court concludes there was reasonable suspicion for defendant’s stop, and the denial of the motion to suppress is affirmed. Parker v. State, 2022 Ind. App. LEXIS 312 (Sep. 22, 2022). (This is not the first case to hold no issue preclusion in this situation.)

Defendant is alleged to have shot a man in a restaurant captured by its surveillance video. The state first challenged standing to contest the search of the DVR for the video, but withdrew the objection. The owner of the restaurant consented to delivery of the video to police, and they got a search warrant for the hard drive it was on. The initial seizure was with exigent circumstances, too. State v. Holmes, 2022 Del. Super. LEXIS 378 (Sep. 20, 2022). (This would potentially have application now to a home surveillance system where the police have exigency and standing was a real issue. One could surmise the state chose to concede standing to make law, and they did.)

Defendant was a suspect in a murder and knew it because he’d been questioned. The police seizure of his truck and cell phone to preserve evidence was reasonable based on the exigency that destruction of evidence would be possible. United States v. Ashley, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171165 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 19, 2022).

This entry was posted in Consent, Emergency / exigency, Issue preclusion, Video surveillance. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.