{"id":2718,"date":"2012-05-22T11:32:16","date_gmt":"2008-11-29T06:13:19","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-11-28T11:42:31","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2718","title":{"rendered":"CA8: Inspecific motion to suppress properly denied"},"content":{"rendered":"

Inspecific motion to suppress that was denied after a hearing was properly denied because the district court could not be expected to rule on an issue that was not specifically addressed to it (here, opening a container). United States v. Spotted Elk<\/a>, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 24202 (8th Cir. November 26, 2008):<\/p>\n

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3)(C) and (e) provides that motions to suppress evidence must be raised before trial or are waived, and the waiver provision “applies not only to the failure to make a pretrial motion, but also to the failure to include a particular argument in the motion.” United States v. Barajas-Chavez, 358 F.3d 1263, 1266-67 (10th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted); see generally 1A Charles Alan Wright & Andrew D. Leipold, Federal Practice & Procedure Criminal \u00a7 193 at 424-26 (4th ed. 2008). The district court could hardly be faulted for failing to grant the suppression motion on the basis of facts not presented to it, and Blue Bird did not renew her motion in light of Jody Richards’ testimony. Even if Blue Bird had presented Jody Richards’ testimony at the motion to suppress, Richards’ testimony was contradicted by the trial testimony of Officer Harrison, who said the containers were not opened until the next day at the evidence facility. Presumably, the government would have countered Richards’ story with its contrary version of the facts. Therefore, even if we were to review this point for plain error, we would have to conclude that any error was not plain.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Bare bones suppression motion left the government partly in the dark as to the issue it needed to defend the search on. Therefore, this is a reasonable request to reopen the suppression hearing. United States v. Martinez, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95678 (E.D. Tenn. November 19, 2008).*<\/p>\n

Securing defendant’s apartment until a search warrant arrived was not a seizure of the stuff inside. United States v. Miller, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95726 (E.D. Pa. November 24, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2718","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2718","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2718"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2718\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2718"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2718"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2718"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}