{"id":5159,"date":"2011-04-14T07:25:15","date_gmt":"2011-02-05T08:19:29","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-02-05T08:19:29","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5159","title":{"rendered":"CA10: Waiver of probable cause for issuance of warrant in the district court not subject to plain error appellate review"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant\u2019s waiver of probable cause for issuance of warrant issue in the district court not subject to plain error appellate review. United States v. Burke<\/a>, 633 F.3d 984 (10th Cir. 2011):<\/p>\n

Burke filed a timely pretrial motion to suppress evidence, and the district court held an evidentiary hearing before denying the motion. The briefs and the oral arguments at the hearing focused exclusively on whether the warrant<\/em> lacked sufficient particularity to guide the police in their search of Burke\u2019s property. At no time did Burke argue the affidavit<\/em> was insufficient to provide the magistrate with probable cause. That contention appears for the first time on appeal, and we thus consider it waived.<\/p>\n

. . .<\/p>\n

When read alone, both Rule 52(b) and Rule 12 appear applicable to pretrial suppression motions. When considered together, however, Rule 12’s waiver provision must prevail:<\/p>\n

The latter is much more specific than is Rule 52(b); while Rule 52(b) states generally that \u201c[a] plain error that affects substantial rights may be considered even though it was not brought to the court\u2019s attention,\u201d Rule 12(e) singles out motions to suppress, stating that a \u201cparty waives any [suppression] defense, objection, or request not raised by the [pretrial] deadline the court sets.\u201d (Emphasis added.) In this context, \u201cwe apply the well-settled maxim that specific statutory provisions prevail over more general provisions.\u201d Chavarria v. Gonzalez, 446 F.3d 508, 517 (3d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus we avoid \u201capplying a general provision when doing so would undermine limitations created by a more specific provision.\u201d Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489, 511, 116 S. Ct. 1065, 134 L. Ed. 2d 130 (1996).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Rose, 538 F.3d at 182-83. Thus, under the plain text of the rules, Rule 12’s absolute waiver controls.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\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-5159","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5159","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=5159"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5159\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5159"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5159"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5159"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}