{"id":9179,"date":"2014-01-16T07:06:58","date_gmt":"2013-08-01T11:03:51","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2013-08-01T11:03:51","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=9179","title":{"rendered":"D.Kan.: Court unconstitutionally shifts burden of proof to defendant to show no valid consent"},"content":{"rendered":"

A motion to suppress a warrantless search of a semi is denied with the court shifting the burden of proof to the defendant on consent. \u201cOn this record, defendant has not shown that the Court should suppress evidence seized as a result of the vehicle stop and search. See United States v. Moore, 22 F.3d 241, 243 (10th Cir. 1994) (proponent of motion to suppress bears burden of proof).\u201d United States v. Vasquez, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105615 (D. Kan. July 29, 2013).* [From Moore: \u201cThe proponent of a motion to suppress bears the burden of proof. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 130-31 n.1, 58 L. Ed. 2d 387, 99 S. Ct. 421 (1978); United States v. Carr, 939 F.2d 1442, 1446 (10th Cir. 1991).\u201d Both of these cases say the defendant has the burden on standing<\/em>, not the motion to suppress. This qualifies as the most obtuse decision of the summer. Burden of proof on motions to suppress are discussed in great detail in \u00a7 60.45 of the coming 5th ed. of the Treatise due out in mid-October. Also, FYI \u00a7\u00a7 62.5-62.20 is a detailed look at standards of review for appeal.]<\/p>\n

Officers had probable cause that defendant was involved in a series of armed robberies with others. When another one occurred with the same MO and description and the description of a car, the car was found a block from defendant\u2019s house. Defendant\u2019s actions and dress described by others were enough to arrest him for the robberies. United States v. Henderson, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106390 (E.D. Wis. June 18, 2013).*<\/p>\n

Summary judgment was properly granted in this 1983 case because the jailers\u2019 use of force against the plaintiff was reasonable in response to his attacking the guard. Ellington v. Cortes<\/a>, 532 Fed. Appx. 53 (3d Cir. 2013).*<\/p>\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-9179","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9179","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=9179"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9179\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9179"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9179"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9179"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}