Category Archives: Admissibility of evidence

W.D.Pa.: Lack of a proper chain of custody is not a ground for a motion to suppress

Alleged lack of a proper chain of custody is not a ground for a motion to suppress. United States v. Pollard, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88536 (W.D. Pa. May 19, 2023). Defendant’s Fourth Amendment issues on appeal are not the … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Consent, Motion to suppress, Waiver | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: Lack of a proper chain of custody is not a ground for a motion to suppress

D.S.C.: Lack of nexus to def isn’t grounds for motion to suppress; that’s a trial question

Lack of nexus between drugs and the defendant is an evidentiary question for trial, not a motion to suppress. The search is legal in any event. United States v. Cunningham, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43510 (D.S.C. Mar. 14, 2023). The … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Open fields, Seizure | Comments Off on D.S.C.: Lack of nexus to def isn’t grounds for motion to suppress; that’s a trial question

M.D.Ala.: Controlled buy 4 days earlier leading to SW comes in under 404(b)

Defendant’s motion in limine about a controlled buy four days before the warrant is denied. It comes in under 404(b). United States v. Neal, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37649 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 7, 2023). “As already discussed at the motion … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Good faith exception, Probable cause, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on M.D.Ala.: Controlled buy 4 days earlier leading to SW comes in under 404(b)

GA: Police reentry into hotel room after medical emergency required SW

Officers responded to a medical emergency at a hotel room. They left and reentered to seize contraband, and the reentry required a warrant. The exigency had passed. State v. Wood, 2023 Ga. App. LEXIS 101 (Feb. 28, 2023). The suppression … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Emergency / exigency, Private search | Comments Off on GA: Police reentry into hotel room after medical emergency required SW

CA4: GFE applied to SW application without PC but where two state court warrants followed up based on it

The government concedes there was no probable cause for the search warrant here, but two state judges also renewed the warrants based on the first one. That’s good faith. United States v. Jordan, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 2655 (4th Cir. … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Good faith exception, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA4: GFE applied to SW application without PC but where two state court warrants followed up based on it

IL: Circumstances made SW affidavit admissible at trial

The trial court abused its discretion in not permitting the defense to use the search warrant affidavit at trial that showed the warrant was targeting another person for other things other than what was found. The court cautions this may … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on IL: Circumstances made SW affidavit admissible at trial

AR: Claim state’s response to motion to suppress was judicial admission has to be presented to trial court

To argue that the state’s admissions in a response to a motion to suppress amount to a judicial admission of fact, the issue has to be argued to the trial court to preserve it. Otherwise, the trial court is free … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Burden of pleading, DNA, Exclusionary rule, Waiver | Comments Off on AR: Claim state’s response to motion to suppress was judicial admission has to be presented to trial court

S.D.Ill.: Extrinsic evidence is admissible in a Franks challenge

Extrinsic evidence of alleged falsity in a Franks challenge is admissible. United States v. Smith, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 234002 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 20, 2022). Questioning defendant about the presence of a firearm in his vehicle fell within the Quarles … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Computer and cloud searches, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on S.D.Ill.: Extrinsic evidence is admissible in a Franks challenge

CA9: Oral amendment to SW to add a place to be searched never incorporated violates 4A, but GFE here because no controlling authority

Officers had a search warrant for plaintiff’s hotel room searching for evidence of a drug operation. They called the issuing judge for permission to search plaintiff’s home under the same affidavit, which was orally granted, but the warrant was not … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Excessive force, Good faith exception, Particularity, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA9: Oral amendment to SW to add a place to be searched never incorporated violates 4A, but GFE here because no controlling authority

S.D.Ga.: Govt’s motion to reopen suppression hearing after R&R is granted

The government didn’t like the R&R so it moved to put on additional evidence before the USMJ. Granted. “Therefore, in light of the Court’s ‘responsibility to make an informed decision’ on Wright’s suppression motion, Khan, 2018 WL 2214813, at *2, … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Automobile exception, Excessive force | Comments Off on S.D.Ga.: Govt’s motion to reopen suppression hearing after R&R is granted

E.D.Tenn.: Challenge of CI’s ID of def in 4A suppression hearing not the remedy; that’s a trial question

Defendant seeks suppression of the CI’s 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. “Either remedy, exclusion of the … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Standing, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on E.D.Tenn.: Challenge of CI’s ID of def in 4A suppression hearing not the remedy; that’s a trial question

GA: Trial questions about SW affidavit properly excluded where officer didn’t prepare affidavit

Trial questions to one officer about alleged false statements in a search warrant affidavit attributed to him but where it was not written by him were excluded. This was not an abuse of discretion since he wasn’t the affiant. Harris … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Cell phones, Cell site location information | Comments Off on GA: Trial questions about SW affidavit properly excluded where officer didn’t prepare affidavit

CA3: Not plain error to fail to exclude potential prejudicial testimony about risk of violence in execution of SW

Testimony about how a search warrant was executed as it was could have prejudiced defendant by revealing the government thought he was violent before arrest. It was not, however, plain error on this record without an objection. United States v. … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Good faith exception, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA3: Not plain error to fail to exclude potential prejudicial testimony about risk of violence in execution of SW

D.Ore.: Officer can be cross-examined at trial on his SW affidavit

The government’s motion in limine against crossing the IRS agent on his search warrant affidavit is denied. The search has already been litigated, and defendant can’t use this as a “mini-Franks hearing.” The government can object if it goes far … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Plain view, feel, smell | Comments Off on D.Ore.: Officer can be cross-examined at trial on his SW affidavit

D.Ore.: Officer may be cross-examined at trial over contents of SW affidavit if relevant

“The Court denies the Government’s motion to prohibit Defendant from cross-examining IRS Special Agent Jason Nix on his sworn statements contained in a search warrant application. See ECF 100 at 13-15. Defendant may cross examine Special Agent Nix regarding any … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Excessive force, Franks doctrine, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on D.Ore.: Officer may be cross-examined at trial over contents of SW affidavit if relevant

CA5: SW affidavit at trial violated confrontation

The government violated the confrontation clause by putting into evidence a search warrant affidavit to seek to give context to the CS’s dealings with defendant. If that’s so important, then the government should call him. United States v. Hamann, 2022 … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence | Comments Off on CA5: SW affidavit at trial violated confrontation

IA: Admission of SW affidavit at trial with CI’s version violated confrontation

Admission of the search warrant affidavit here at trial with inadmissible hearsay of the CI was a violation of confrontation. State v. Martinez, 2022 Iowa App. LEXIS 410 (May 11, 2022). These search warrant materials remain sealed for one year. … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Warrant execution, Warrant papers | Comments Off on IA: Admission of SW affidavit at trial with CI’s version violated confrontation

CA9: Neighbor’s video of SWAT team arrival for search was properly excluded at trial for confusion of issues

Defendant’s neighbor recorded the SWAT team arrival and participating in the execution of the search warrant from outside the house. Defendant’s offer of the video at trial was rejected. “Permitting the jury to see that the police who were executing … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Plain view, feel, smell, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA9: Neighbor’s video of SWAT team arrival for search was properly excluded at trial for confusion of issues

CA6: There was PC and exigency for search of car even though district court didn’t say “automobile exception”

The smell of marijuana from defendant’s car was probable cause. The district court didn’t say “automobile exception,” but that’s what it meant. United States v. Hall, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 2983 (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2022).* Defendant’s Franks allegation fails … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Automobile exception, Franks doctrine, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA6: There was PC and exigency for search of car even though district court didn’t say “automobile exception”

OH10: No REP in possession of a stolen laptop that sent its location information

Appellant’s motion to reopen his appeal to reargue his Fourth Amendment claims is denied. Not one thing he proffers can change the outcome of the appeal. There was a basis for a GPS warrant on his vehicle, and there was … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Computer and cloud searches, Informant hearsay, Prison and jail searches, Tracking warrant | Comments Off on OH10: No REP in possession of a stolen laptop that sent its location information