The trial court did not commit plain error in not inquiring into the drug dogs training when defendant didn’t raise it. State v. Jones, 2019-Ohio-3704, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 3777 (6th Dist. Sept. 16, 2019).
The particulars of a drug dog’s training isn’t an issue unless the defendant raises it. The court doesn’t have to determine it on its own. United States v. Tullous, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156746 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 13, 2019).
Plaintiff was Tased three times. The Court of Appeals finds the first and third reasonable, but likely not the second because it wasn’t apparent then that plaintiff was a threat, so the case is remanded for reconsideration of the second Tasing. Jackson v. Stair, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 27479 (8th Cir. Sept. 12, 2019).*
The mother of a juvenile was ordered to give observed UAs as a part of a dependency-neglect proceeding. She didn’t provide a sufficient appellate record to decide whether the trial court’s order violated the state constitution, so it’s affirmed. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. A.M.B. (In re K.R.M.), 299 Ore. App. 361, 2019 Ore. App. LEXIS 1132 (Sept. 11, 2019).
Defendant’s driving and her condition and admissions after the stop were reasonable suspicion to continue the detention for DUI. City of Westlake v. Blakley, 2019-Ohio-3670, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 3755 (8th Dist. Sept. 12, 2019).*
The affidavit lacked probable cause and didn’t connect defendant’s van to the crime. Yet, it wasn’t so bad that the good faith exception couldn’t apply. [Seems like it should not have applied.] United States v. Burgess, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155870 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 12, 2019).*
“Based on what they saw, these officers had an objectively reasonable and specific factual basis for suspecting the vehicle was following Rapp more closely than was reasonable under the conditions, even if their limited observation and partially obstructed view may have been insufficient to prove a violation beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Silcott, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155764 (D. Kan. Sept. 12, 2019).*
Defendant was staying at a hotel, and the housekeeper found a gun and drugs in his room while cleaning it. She told the manager who looked and then called the police. The police told him to secure the room, and a search warrant was obtained. The hotel’s action was a private search not governed by the Fourth Amendment. State v. Sealey, 2019-Ohio-3692, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 3764 (2d Dist. Sept. 13, 2019).
Defendant’s latest post-conviction petition is a successor on his claim defense counsel was ineffective for not pursuing a motion to suppress. Denied as a successor. State v. Perry, 2019-Ohio-3668, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 3751 (8th Dist. Sept. 12, 2019).*
NJLJ: Law Enforcement Should Read Ruling on Detention of Undocumented Immigrants (“The Third Circuit’s decision provides a ‘teachable moment’ with regard to the role of, and limits on, local law enforcement in detentions of undocumented aliens.”).
WV Gazette: Officers found his $25K of heroin. He walked free, and now he’s suing police by Jake Zuckerman. Police raided a house after falsely stating that one Figueroa lived there and made several drug deals. It was the wrong house.
The case quickly fell apart when U.S. District Judge John Copenhaver found the only basis the officers used in their search warrant to state Figueroa “lived or stayed at” Sizemore’s was that they saw her in the house one time, they saw a car they connected her with parked there once, and they saw her leave the house once.
The post of Sizemore’s case is here.
Defendant sort of raised a search claim as attacking a USSG enhancement, but the court finds that the enhancement applies no matter what. Martinez v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154693 (D. N.M. Sept. 11, 2019).*
Defendant’s unconstitutional arrest led to his statement, and it is suppressed. No break in chain of events. United States v. Rollins, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154677 (D. S.C. Sept. 11, 2019).*
“Even accepting Peake’s characterization of the video interview as accurate, it would not show that Officer Baker made ‘reckless and materially false statements’ in the search warrant affidavit that would need to be stricken.” It simply isn’t material to the probable cause finding. United States v. Peake, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156102 (E.D. Va. Aug. 20, 2019).*
Officers could approach defendant to talk to him because he generally fit the description and location of a person named in an arrest warrant. It turned out that he wasn’t the guy, but it doesn’t make it unreasonable to stop him. Miller v. State, 2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 497 (Sept. 9, 2019).
Police had an arrest warrant for a person also living at defendant’s address, and they entered on the arrest warrant and did a protective sweep. A sawed-off shotgun was found during the sweep, and it’s admissible and won’t be suppressed. United States v. Ford, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107424 (N.D. Ind. June 27, 2019), on reconsideration, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154555 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 11, 2019) (the parties’ mistake in their stipulation as to where gun actually was doesn’t change the outcome; it was still within plain view).
The affidavit for the search warrant shows plenty of probable cause. The alleged misstatements aren’t material at all. United States v. Aviles, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 27517 (3d Cir. Sept. 12, 2019).*
Two days after oral argument on a law firm’s appeal that a USMJ reviewed privileged materials seized from the firm by search warrant and not the USAO’s “filter team,” the Fourth Circuit orders the Magistrate to do it pending issuance of the opinion. United States v. Under Seal, 19-1730 (4th Cir. Sept. 12, 2019):
Petitioner’s 2255 Fourth Amendment claim was already decided on direct appeal and can’t be raised now. Felix v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154587 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 11, 2019).*
Same with this state conviction. Haithcox v. State, 2019 MT 201, 2019 Mont. LEXIS 475 (Aug. 20, 2019).*
This is just fundamental collateral estoppel.