Defendant seeks suppression of the CI\u2019s identification of him within the search warrant process, which the court declines to do. Due process issues with identification are trial issues, not Fourth Amendment motion to suppress issues. \u201cEither remedy, exclusion of the identification or testing the identification by traditional methods, relates to the admissibility of the identification at trial.\u201d Besides, the officers made their own independent identification. Nexus to defendant\u2019s residence was established by surveillance showing him leaving his house and heading to the meet for the controlled buy. United States v. Smith-Wilson, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124481 (E.D. Tenn. June 24, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cDefendant simply asserts he was illegally arrested the moment law enforcement made contact with him, and incriminating evidence was recovered in the bushes outside someone else’s residence by law enforcement shortly thereafter, but otherwise offers no facts to establish the requisite nexus between the claimed constitutional violation and the challenged evidence. \u2026 [\u00b6] And, had Defendant’s detention not occurred, task force agents still would have been free to search the bushy area to recover any evidence they found there. Defendant does not claim he lived at Kashaun’s residence or otherwise assert he has any possessory interest or other reasonable expectation of privacy in the bushy area of the property to establish he has standing to challenge the search of that area.\u201d United States v. Culberson, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122356 (D. Neb. May 26, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant seeks suppression of the CI\u2019s identification of him within the search warrant process, which the court declines to do. Due process issues with identification are trial issues, not Fourth Amendment motion to suppress issues. \u201cEither remedy, exclusion of the … Continue reading