Category Archives: Exclusionary rule

W.D.N.Y.: 4A ER does not apply to def’s claim records obtained from others were “unreliable”

Defendant’s argument that the records obtained by search warrant from other are unreliable is not a Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule question. United States v. Skinner, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84377 (W.D. N.Y. May 3, 2021). A burnt blunt on the … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Exclusionary rule, Probable cause, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on W.D.N.Y.: 4A ER does not apply to def’s claim records obtained from others were “unreliable”

OH4: Criminal investigation’s SW production was admissible in child dependency proceeding

A search warrant produced drug evidence admissible in a dependency and neglect proceeding, and that supported the finding. In re J.M., 2021-Ohio-1415, 2021 Ohio App. LEXIS 1376 (4th Dist. Apr. 19, 2021). Defendant’s son “posted a video on the internet” … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Consent, Exclusionary rule, Probable cause, Standing | Comments Off on OH4: Criminal investigation’s SW production was admissible in child dependency proceeding

E.D.Mo.: Constitutionality of window tint statute doesn’t have anything to do with PC for a stop for overtinting

Even if Missouri’s window tint statute was unconstitutional, something in doubt, it wouldn’t have any affect on the reasonableness of defendant’s stop for violating it, and the exclusionary rule would not apply. Factually, the officer said he couldn’t see into … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception, GPS / Tracking Data, Ineffective assistance | Comments Off on E.D.Mo.: Constitutionality of window tint statute doesn’t have anything to do with PC for a stop for overtinting

IL: For “immediately apparent” in plain view, only “practical, nontechnical” probability that incriminating evidence is involved is required

On the incriminating nature of an object in plain view being “immediately apparent,” “[a]ll that is required is a ‘“practical, nontechnical”’ probability that incriminating evidence is involved.” People v. Molnar, 2021 IL App (2d) 190289, 2021 Ill. App. LEXIS 192 … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Plain view, feel, smell, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on IL: For “immediately apparent” in plain view, only “practical, nontechnical” probability that incriminating evidence is involved is required

ID: Violation of citizen’s arrest statute not a const’l violation; no suppression

The officer arrested defendant for a completed misdemeanor of stealing a cell phone not occurring in his presence. The manager of the place where it happened wanted defendant arrested. The officer and the manager never informed defendant this was a … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Common law, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on ID: Violation of citizen’s arrest statute not a const’l violation; no suppression

DE: Exclusionary rule not designed to prohibit extra-territorial GPS tracking with warrant

In this post-conviction case, defense counsel didn’t raise the question of extraterritorial monitoring of a warrant installed GPS device. It was installed in 2015 [post-Jones] to track defendant who was an accomplished [except for getting caught] burglar. The court doesn’t … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, GPS / Tracking Data, Reasonableness, Tracking warrant | Comments Off on DE: Exclusionary rule not designed to prohibit extra-territorial GPS tracking with warrant

D.S.D.: Suppression or dismissal aren’t remedies for violation of Right to Financial Privacy Act

Grand jury subpoenas are a proper method of obtaining bank records under the Right to Financial Privacy Act enacted after Miller. Also, suppression and dismissal aren’t remedies under the Act. United States v. Lundahl, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52211 (D.S.D. … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Franks doctrine, Inventory | Comments Off on D.S.D.: Suppression or dismissal aren’t remedies for violation of Right to Financial Privacy Act

D.Utah: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in false arrest civil cases

The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in false arrest civil cases. Linin v. Neff, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51836 (D. Utah. Mar. 18, 2021). [In fact, it may be the crux of the case.] Probable cause was shown for a search … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Probable cause | Comments Off on D.Utah: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in false arrest civil cases

MI: Inventory policy doesn’t have to be written if it’s standardized

A written search inventory policy isn’t constitutionally required. “We hold that, in order to establish that an inventory search is reasonable, the prosecution must establish that an inventory-search policy existed, all police officers were required to follow the policy, the … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Inventory, Issue preclusion, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d), Waiver | Comments Off on MI: Inventory policy doesn’t have to be written if it’s standardized

E.D.Mich.: Govt’s violation of 42 C.F.R. Part 2 has no exclusionary remedy; that’s for const’l violations

In an opiod over prescribing case, a government violation of 42 C.F.R. Part 2 by the government only leads to a fine against the offending person. The exclusionary rule does not apply to regulation violations. United States v. Pompy, 2021 … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Govt’s violation of 42 C.F.R. Part 2 has no exclusionary remedy; that’s for const’l violations

D.Kan.: “Frantic” furtive movements as officers approached stopped car justified drawing weapons

Defendant’s “frantic” furtive movements as he stopped during a traffic stop justified officers drawing down on him as they approached the car. “Then during Solis’s temporary detention, other facts arose establishing probable cause to arrest him. The Court therefore concludes … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.Kan.: “Frantic” furtive movements as officers approached stopped car justified drawing weapons

NY Kings Co.: Exclusionary rule not applied in civil case to end tenancy under rent control statute

Defendant was convicted of surreptitiously recording a tenant in another apartment with planted wireless camera. Some evidence in the criminal proceeding was suppressed. In a civil case to void his tenancy under the rent control laws, the exclusionary rule is … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on NY Kings Co.: Exclusionary rule not applied in civil case to end tenancy under rent control statute

KY: Deputy in one county could go to another to investigate; no motion to suppress lies for statutory violation, if there even was one

A motion to suppress for a statutory violation doesn’t work in Kentucky absent a constitutional violation to found it on. Here, a deputy from one county crossed into another county to investigate. The statute defendant relies on deals with arrest, … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Exclusionary rule, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on KY: Deputy in one county could go to another to investigate; no motion to suppress lies for statutory violation, if there even was one

E.D.Cal.: Officer wasn’t required to wait around for alternative means to tow vehicle before impoundment

“It is true that defendant made multiple requests to contact AAA to tow his truck, and he eventually suggested arranging for his father or friends, who were purportedly nearby, to move his truck to avoid impoundment. There was no telling … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Inventory | Comments Off on E.D.Cal.: Officer wasn’t required to wait around for alternative means to tow vehicle before impoundment

OH12: GFE applies to precedent decided day before search where nobody knew of the case

The day before defendant’s parole search, the state supreme court put the legality of his parole status in doubt. Nobody involved even knew about the case. The court agrees that the good faith exception applies to the search because there … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception | Comments Off on OH12: GFE applies to precedent decided day before search where nobody knew of the case

CA9: When the 4A question isn’t settled, the alleged 4A violation can’t be egregious in immigration cases

“In immigration proceedings, the exclusionary rule applies to evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment only when the violation is egregious. … Petitioners bear the burden of making a prima facie showing of an egregious Fourth Amendment violation. … … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Immigration arrests | Comments Off on CA9: When the 4A question isn’t settled, the alleged 4A violation can’t be egregious in immigration cases

D.Mont.: State trooper’s alleged violation of a tribal agreement with state wasn’t sufficient for exclusionary rule

A Montana state trooper’s alleged violations of a cross deputization agreement with a tribe wasn’t justification for exclusion of evidence from his stop of defendant. “The Court fails to make the connection between any constitutional violation whose remedy is suppression … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on D.Mont.: State trooper’s alleged violation of a tribal agreement with state wasn’t sufficient for exclusionary rule

CA4: Ptf’s claim the statute he was arrested under was unconstitutional is barred by DeFillippo

Plaintiff’s claim that his arrest and search was invalid because the statute under which he was stopped and arrested was unconstitutional is barred by Michigan v. DeFillippo. Quigley v. City of Huntington, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 760 (4th Cir. Jan. … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception, Issue preclusion, Standards of review | Comments Off on CA4: Ptf’s claim the statute he was arrested under was unconstitutional is barred by DeFillippo

M.D.Fla.: Even if a notebook was unlawfully seized, an IRS summons for it was valid

The IRS summons was upheld. “[E]ven if the notebooks were unlawfully seized, the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule does not render the summonses unenforceable. First, even if the exclusionary rule applied, evidence may not be excluded when it is obtained based … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion, Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: Even if a notebook was unlawfully seized, an IRS summons for it was valid

OH12: RS for stop after drugs found in 70 other traffic stops leaving suspected drug house

Suppose just for the sake of argument a law enforcement officer conducts 70 potentially legal stops of cars leaving a drug house but then finds drugs in the car. Assume further there was no reasonable suspicion for a detention or … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion, Reasonableness | Comments Off on OH12: RS for stop after drugs found in 70 other traffic stops leaving suspected drug house