When the government says a suppression motion is moot because it will not offer evidence, it is still precluded from using it, but the motion is denied as moot. United States v. Armstead, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143200 (N.D. Iowa December 13, 2011):<\/p>\n
As a practical matter, it is unclear whether there is a significant difference between granting the motion to suppress or denying the motion as moot (based on the Government’s promise not to offer the evidence during its case in chief). Under either alternative, the Government is precluded from offering into evidence during its case in chief the items seized during the warrantless search. When the Government agrees not to offer evidence which is the subject of the motion to suppress, however, it would appear that the common practice is to deny the motion as moot. Accordingly, the Court recommends that outcome here.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
[Note: When the government says the motion is moot, it is agreeing not to offer the evidence. If the government later wants to use the evidence, a suppression motion would still be required.]<\/p>\n
The district court found two alternative grounds to sustain the search and seizure, but defendant appealed only one, and that was a waiver of the other, so that is affirmed. United States v. Sosa-Almontes<\/a>, 451 Fed. Appx. 441 (5th Cir. 2011).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading