{"id":49407,"date":"2021-08-18T06:54:28","date_gmt":"2021-08-18T11:54:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=49407"},"modified":"2021-08-18T06:54:28","modified_gmt":"2021-08-18T11:54:28","slug":"ne-no-rep-in-cell-in-pretrial-detention-for-evidence-of-witness-tampering-also-sw-obtained","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=49407","title":{"rendered":"NE: No REP in cell in pretrial detention for evidence of witness tampering; also, SW obtained"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The state got a search warrant for a pretrial detainee\u2019s county jail cell for evidence of witness tampering. The search was not institutional security. The trial court suppressed, but the court of appeals reversed: there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a jail cell, even for a pretrial detainee. Moreover, the use of a search warrant showed the officers\u2019 good faith, and the exclusionary rule should not be applied. State v. Kuek<\/a>, 2021 Neb. App. LEXIS 203 (Aug. 17, 2021) (unpublished).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Defendant\u2019s post-conviction claim that defense counsel didn\u2019t properly challenge the search in his case doesn\u2019t have merit. There\u2019s no showing that it would matter or that the outcome would be different. \u201cAs outlined above, Smith has put forth no evidence that he could have made a successful Fourth Amendment challenge to the stop and search of his vehicle. Even if he did, Smith could not demonstrate prejudice. As noted above, Trooper Withers would still have inevitably discovered (and seized) the narcotics in Smith’s vehicle following Smith’s arrest on the California warrant. Smith therefore cannot demonstrate that Mr. de Montreux was \u2018completely unreasonable\u2019 in declining to appeal the suppression ruling on his Fourth Amendment claim.\u201d Smith v. United States, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154165 (D.Utah Aug. 12, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The state got a search warrant for a pretrial detainee\u2019s county jail cell for evidence of witness tampering. The search was not institutional security. The trial court suppressed, but the court of appeals reversed: there is no reasonable expectation of … Continue reading →<\/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":[23,113],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-49407","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ineffective-assistance","category-prison-and-jail-searches"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49407","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=49407"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49407\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":49408,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49407\/revisions\/49408"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=49407"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=49407"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=49407"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}