NM: Suppression issues should not be decided at preliminary hearings

A preliminary hearing isn’t a proper place to resolve potential suppression issues. They happen on a “brisk time line” and the rules of evidence don’t apply to them. This is committed to the pretrial process in the trial courts. State v. Ayon, 2023 N.M. LEXIS 189 (Sep. 5, 2023).

“They assert five reasons for this: (1) the officers had personal knowledge of where the five gunshots were fired; (2) Mr. Atchak was walking in that exact same area immediately after the shots were fired; (3) Mr. Atchak started walking away from the officers as soon as he saw them; (4) Mr. Atchak changed directions again when he saw more officers; and (5) only Mr. Atchak, of the four pedestrians the officers encountered, was uncooperative and evasive. Given the facts in this case, the Court finds that the police officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop on Mr. Atchak.” Untied States v. Atchak, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157016 (D. Alaska Sep. 6, 2023).*

A traffic checkpoint established because of speeding in a school zone was reasonable. It was visible from 500′ away, police cars had blue lights on, and every car was stopped for a DL and paperwork check. United States v. Fishburne, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 23668 (4th Cir. Sep. 6, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Reasonable suspicion, Roadblocks, Suppression hearings. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.