E.D.Tenn.: Items unreasonably seized under SW as outside its scope still not returned because they are forfeitable

Some of the items seized under the warrant were named or were covered by plain view when the police got inside. Some are excludable, but they aren’t returned because the government intends to forfeit. United States v. Abdul-Latif, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214141 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 7, 2023), adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213234 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 30, 2023).

Defendant failed to meet his burden of pleading and proof on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim that counsel failed to move to suppress the search of a bar surveillance recording device. The police had it voluntarily from the bar owner along with the password to get into it. A search warrant was obtained for it that wasn’t promptly executed. There’s no requirement under state law that the state’s failure to search it promptly leads to suppression. [Standing to challenge the search isn’t even mentioned.] Mohr v. State, 2023 Ga. App. LEXIS 553 (Dec. 1, 2023).*

Without a transcript of the suppression hearing for appeal, there’s nothing to rule on. Denial of motion to suppress affirmed. State v. Crain, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 4167 (5th Dist. Nov. 30, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Forfeiture, Ineffective assistance, Overseizure, Scope of search, Waiver. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.