CA10: Not unreasonable for state court to not apply exclusionary rule in sentencing

Under the unreasonable application standard of 2254, the Utah court did not unreasonably conclude the exclusionary rule would not be applied in the sentencing phase of a criminal trial. Menzies v. Powell, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 30789 (10th Cir. Nov. 7, 2022).

In this forfeiture case, the ALJ found the affidavit for warrant lacking probable cause and went outside the warrant to consider evidence of probable cause. This was improper. At any rate, the affidavit for warrant was based on probable cause. Oliver v. Tenn. Dep’t of Safety & Homeland Sec., 2022 Tenn. App. LEXIS 427 (Nov. 4, 2022).*

The affidavit for this warrant was based on probable cause. And the good faith exception would apply in any event. United States v. Moss, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201700 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 4, 2022).*

A bulge in clothing alone is not reasonable suspicion. Bennett v. State, 2022 Md. App. LEXIS 814 (Nov. 4, 2022) (unreported).*

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.