E.D.La.: Def still a danger to community after grant of motion to suppress; reopening detention hearing denied

After defendant’s motion to suppress was granted, he moved to reopen his detention hearing. It’s denied. The government superseded the indictment, and he’s still found to be a danger to the community. “The Court may thus properly consider suppressed evidence in the pretrial detention assessment. Therefore, all of the evidence previously considered at the May 19, 2023, detention hearing continues to inform the detention issue even though some of that evidence may fall within Judge Long’s suppression decision.” United States v. Wilson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95575 (E.D. La. May 20, 2025).

“The court agrees that the inventory search was constitutional, and that even if there were constitutional deficiencies, the gun would have been inevitably discovered.” United States v. Nelson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95987 (E.D. Mich. May 20, 2025).*

“A ‘general proposition,’ such as ‘that an unreasonable search or seizure violates the Fourth Amendment is of little help in determining whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.’ Rather, ‘we must frame the constitutional question with specificity and granularity.’ In other words, the ‘dispositive question is “whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.”’ We also note our ‘commandment’ that clearly established law comes from ‘holdings, not dicta,’ because public officials ‘are charged with knowing the results of our cases … [but] are not charged with memorizing every jot and tittle we write to explain them.’ [¶] Respectfully, the district court erred by defining Wetherbe’s rights at too high of a level of generality.” Wetherbe v. Tex. Tech. Univ. Sys., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 12248 (5th Cir. May 20, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Independent source, Inventory, Motion to suppress, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.