CA9: Failure to tell def of precise reason for arrest when no warrant in hand did not warrant suppression

Suppression of defendant’s statements is not warranted for FBI agents’ violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 4(c)(3)(A), which provides that an arresting officer who does not possess a copy of the arrest warrant “must inform the defendant of the warrant’s existence and of the offense charged.” Here, it is illogical to conclude that the agents’ failure to tell him the precise charges prompted his incriminating statements; his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was not implicated as he was not yet in custody; and there was no evidence that the agents engaged in the kind of deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct that the exclusionary rule is meant to deter. United States v. Rodriguez-Arvizu, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6205 (9th Cir. Mar. 17, 2025).

Nexus to defendant’s cell phone was provided by disclosure from “Sky ECC communications that were provided by the French government.” United States v. Gogic, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48254 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2025).*

Defendant was stopped because the officer ran his LPN to confirm he was the owner, ran him through a police intel database and the courts’ online docket finding investigations and cases, and he had reasonable suspicion to continue the stop by the time the drug dog arrived. Also, he delayed the stop because he was alone and he could see other officers on the screen approaching by their GPS. State v. Johnson, 2025-Ohio-890 (11th Dist. Mar. 17, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Dog sniff, Exclusionary rule, Foreign searches, Nexus, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.