E.D.Pa.: The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to grand jury evidence

Under Calandra (1974), there’s no basis for dismissing an indictment because it might be based on an illegal search. The search was valid anyway because it was based on the consenter’s apparent authority. United States v. Jones, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11888 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 22, 2026). [I haven’t seen Calandra cited for this in ages.]

Being an alleged illegal alien alone isn’t probable cause. Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 407 (2012) (citing INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1038 (1984)). “In sum, ICE officers violated Petitioners’ Fifth Amendment due process rights by detaining them and holding them in custody without any pre-deprivation notice or hearing, and they executed unlawful warrantless arrests that violated the INA, the APA, and Petitioners’ Fourth Amendment rights.” A.B.D. v. Wamsley, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11720 (D. Or. Jan. 22, 2026).*

When raising a Fourth Amendment claim in federal court, the question is the process, not the outcome. McGee v. Warden, Belmont Corr. Inst., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11818 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 22, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Immigration arrests, Issue preclusion, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.