{"id":4525,"date":"2011-01-11T14:17:26","date_gmt":"2010-08-09T00:05:42","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-08-08T13:26:55","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4525","title":{"rendered":"CA3: Gov&#8217;t waived a justification for the search and exclusionary rule by not arguing it below"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The government waived the argument presented on appeal by not first presenting the issue to the District Court. Also, citing a case for one proposition does not include any other argument that might flow from it. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca6.uscourts.gov\/opinions.pdf\/10a0234p-06.pdf\">United States v. Dupree<\/a>, 617 F.3d 724 (3d Cir. 2010):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>As the Government recognized at oral argument, simply citing a case in the District Court is not sufficient to raise all arguments that might flow from it. See Nee, 261 F.3d at 86. To preserve the argument that it now makes on appeal, the Government had to do more than broadly reference Hodari D. Instead, it had to give the District Court the opportunity to consider the argument it now makes, i.e.,  whether the policies underlying the exclusionary rule demonstrate that it should apply where, as here, an illegally seized defendant breaks free and discards evidence while fleeing. Because it did not do so, the Government failed to preserve its argument for appeal.<\/p>\n<p>. . .<\/p>\n<p>In this appeal, the Government proffers two alternative bases for reversing the District Court&#8217;s suppression of Dupree&#8217;s firearm. The Government&#8217;s principal argument reflects a thoughtful consideration of the Supreme Court&#8217;s more recent exclusionary rule jurisprudence. We undoubtedly will have occasion to consider that argument in the future, but not in a case, such as this one, where it was never presented to the District Court. For the reasons stated herein and in Judge Fisher&#8217;s concurring opinion, we will affirm the District Court&#8217;s orders granting Dupree&#8217;s motion to suppress and denying the Government&#8217;s motion for reconsideration.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4525\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/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-4525","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4525","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=4525"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4525\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4525"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4525"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4525"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}