AR: Claim state’s response to motion to suppress was judicial admission has to be presented to trial court

To argue that the state’s admissions in a response to a motion to suppress amount to a judicial admission of fact, the issue has to be argued to the trial court to preserve it. Otherwise, the trial court is free to believe which witnesses it chooses. Stapleton v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 7, 2023 Ark. App. LEXIS 4 (Jan. 18, 2023).

Defendant’s stop without reasonable suspicion was unreasonable, and the exclusionary rule applies. People v. Miller, 2023 NY Slip Op 00219, 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 221 (2d Dept. Jan. 18, 2023).*

There is no privacy interest in a buccal swab once it is lawfully taken. People v. Fortuna, 2023 NY Slip Op 23013, 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 131 (Bronx Co. Jan. 18, 2023).*

Admission of the act revealed from defendant’s probation search condition was waiver of the claim the search was unreasonable. Alvarado v. State, 2023 Del. LEXIS 19 (Jan. 17, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Admissibility of evidence, Burden of pleading, DNA, Exclusionary rule, Waiver. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.