NE: When entry is premised on an arrest warrant, the prosecution has to put it into evidence at the suppression hearing

Officers entered defendant’s home with alleged arrest warrants, but none were produced at the suppression hearing. To survive the motion to suppress, the state had to put into evidence their legal authority for the entry, the arrest warrants, to show that they were complying with the Fourth Amendment, so the conviction and affirmance by the court of appeals is reversed. The motion to suppress his statements made when the officers were in the house is also reversed. State v. Borst, 281 Neb. 217, 795 N.W.2d 262 (2011).

Seizure of a gun in a car in NYC could not be justified by plain view where the officer had to lean in the car to make the view. The prosecution’s alternate basis of furtive movements in the backseat giving reasonable suspicion for a car frisk for the gun was not resolved by the trial court, so the case is remanded for a finding on that. People v Washington, 2011 NY Slip Op 2047, 2011 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1995 (1st Dept. March 22, 2011).*

A Vietnamese naturalized citizen argued that culturally he was predisposed to consent. The court found consent valid. “While Tran’s cultural background may have made him less inclined to refuse consent, the court’s determination that he voluntarily consented was not clearly erroneous.” United States v. Tran, 412 Fed. Appx. 923 (8th Cir. 2011) (unpublished).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.