{"id":46474,"date":"2020-12-17T08:30:01","date_gmt":"2020-12-17T13:30:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=46474"},"modified":"2020-12-17T10:08:14","modified_gmt":"2020-12-17T15:08:14","slug":"ca11-dist-ct-acted-within-its-discretion-denying-a-suppression-motion-as-untimely","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=46474","title":{"rendered":"CA11: Dist Ct acted within its discretion denying a suppression motion as untimely"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Defense counsel waited past the pretrial motions deadline to file a motion to suppress complaining that he needed a state court transcript, but that hearing was long ago. The district court acted within its discretion in denying the motion for untimeliness. <a href=\"https:\/\/media.ca11.uscourts.gov\/opinions\/unpub\/files\/201910762.pdf\">United States v. Fernetus<\/a>, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 39533 (11th Cir. Dec. 16, 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cIn addition, none of the other situations precluding the good faith exception apply as there is nothing in the record that even hints that the Magistrate Judge who reviewed the affidavit and signed the search warrant engaged in any misconduct or abrogation of judicial responsibility. Moreover, the warrant is facially valid in that it describes in sufficient detail the things to be seized, the location for the search, and it is signed by a Magistrate Judge. \u2026 Accordingly, the agents executing the warrant were justified in believing in its validity, and evidence seized during the execution would not be subject to suppression under the good faith exception even if the warrant were found to lack probable cause.\u201d United States v. Latorre, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 236111 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 23, 2020),* adopted, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 235118 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 15, 2020).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Defense counsel waited past the pretrial motions deadline to file a motion to suppress complaining that he needed a state court transcript, but that hearing was long ago. The district court acted within its discretion in denying the motion for &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=46474\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-46474","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-good-faith-exception","category-motion-to-suppress"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46474","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\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=46474"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46474\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":46482,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46474\/revisions\/46482"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=46474"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=46474"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=46474"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}