CA10: Civil remedy for violation of Posse Comitatus Act, not exclusion

The remedy for a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act is civil, not exclusion. United States v. King, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 19052 (10th Cir. July 25, 2023) (denying COA).

“On the whole, the factors outlined in Chavez provide mixed support for the Concerned Citizen’s reliability. However, as addressed supra pp. 17-18, even viewing the Concerned Citizen as reliable, the incongruity between the Concerned Citizen’s description and Mr. Ramirez’s presentation undercuts the existence of reasonable suspicion. In other words, while the Concerned Citizen may have been reliable, the description he provided did not match the person whom Sergeant Mares detained. In comparison, while the information the father supplied fit Mr. Ramirez’s appearance and location, the father-who had no sustained in-person contact with officers and shared information only through his son-was even less reliable than his son, undermining the reliability of those reports. Under the totality of the circumstances, the incongruity between the Concerned Citizen’s report and Mr. Ramirez’s appearance as well as the father’s minimal reliability establish that Sergeant Mares lacked reasonable suspicion to detain Mr. Ramirez.” United States v. Ramirez, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127057 (D.N.M. July 17, 2023).*

Any motion to suppress would have failed. There was plenty of probable cause. Williams v. United States, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127833 (D. N.J. July 24, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Ineffective assistance, Informant hearsay. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.