The police stopped a city bus with reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant would be on the bus based on observations and investigation and learning that the defendant had left the scene of the alleged crime heading to the bus stop, witnesses saw him going that way, a man [sort of] matching his description was in the back of the bus as seen from the street [considering he was black and the community was nearly all Hispanic]. United States v. Nellon, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12536 (S.D. Tex. February 11, 2010).<\/p>\n
Severability of the parts of a warrant on a motion to suppress is preferred to suppressing everything. Elkins v. District of Columbia, 685 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D. D.C. 2010):<\/p>\n
By suppressing the documents seized but not the testimony of the inspectors or the photographs, the Hearing Officer followed the doctrine of severability, separately considering evidence obtained from the illegal seizure versus the valid search. “In accordance with the purposes underlying the warrant requirement and the exclusionary rule, every federal court to consider the issue has adopted the doctrine of severance, whereby valid portions of a warrant are severed from the invalid portions and only materials seized under the authority of the valid portions, or lawfully seized while executing the valid portions, are admissible.” United States v. Sells, 463 F.3d 1148, 1154-55 (10th Cir. 2006); see also id. at n.1 (all federal circuits follow the doctrine of severability, though courts refer to it by different terms — severability, severance, redaction, or partial suppression) (citing In re Search Warrant Dated July 4, 1977, 667 F.2d 117, 133 (D.C. Cir. 1981), abrogated on other grounds, Horton v. California, 696 U.S. 128 (1990)).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading