CA8: Motion to suppress via motion for judgment of acquittal results in plain error review

Defendant’s motion to suppress was made as a motion for judgment of acquittal, so it was subject to plain error review, which it was not. United States v. Thornton, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20109 (8th Cir. Aug. 4, 2023).

“The basis for the argument that the troopers racially profiled Defendants rests on the facts that Ochoa is a Hispanic male, Tooks is an African American male, and the troopers are white men. Defendants offer no direct or circumstantial evidence that the troopers were motivated by a discriminatory purpose, nor do they attempt to make any showing that similarly-situated individuals of another race could have been, but were not, stopped for speeding.” This is not proof of pretext. United States v. Ochoa, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135754 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 4, 2023).*

Whether the taking of defendant’s DNA violated state law doesn’t matter in a Fourth Amendment reasonableness inquiry in federal court. United States v. Hines, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134662 (E.D. N.C. Aug. 3, 2023).

This entry was posted in Motion to suppress, Pretext, Reasonableness, Standards of review. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.