{"id":3964,"date":"2010-12-29T14:32:04","date_gmt":"2010-03-18T05:50:36","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-03-18T04:04:33","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3964","title":{"rendered":"CA9 denies rehearing en banc in its Gant<\/em> retroactivity case"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Ninth Circuit denies rehearing en banc in its August 2009 Gant retroactivity-with-no-good-faith-exception case. In that case, the defendant had a cert petition pending when Gant was decided, and SCOTUS GVR’d the case. On remand, Gant was applied. The rehearing dissent says that Herring and Krull dictate the result, but it reads like the officers were held liable for a judgment for violating the Fourth Amendment. As the majority says: “Finally, the reader should bear in mind that this case deals with a defendant’s right to suppress evidence obtained by an unconstitutional search. It does not involve whether the officers who conducted the search are entitled to qualified immunity. The rights of the defendant, not those of the police, are at issue. The dissent persists in its view that discipline of police is at issue rather than individual rights. See Dissent at 4347-48 (‘Here, the panel confuses the retroactive application of a Supreme Court decision in the area of individual rights (a jury picked without racial motivation) with what is an area of societal rights (suppression of evidence to discipline police).’).” United States v. Gonzalez<\/a>, 598 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2010), denying rehearing en banc from 578 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2009)<\/a> posted here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Assuming the police seized defendant\u2019s apartment unlawfully, the statement he made was purged of the taint and was voluntary. United States v. Tyson<\/a>, 369 Fed. Appx. 272 (2d Cir. 2010) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n

Officers developed probable cause from the informant\u2019s information, and that gave them reason to search the car under Ross. United States v. Garcia-Ruiz, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22777 (E.D. Tex. March 1, 2010).*<\/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-3964","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3964","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=3964"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3964\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3964"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3964"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3964"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}