Category Archives: Exclusionary rule

Cal.: Partial overbreadth can lead to suppression in egregious cases with flagrant constitutional violations, but this isn’t one

While partial overbreadth can lead to suppression of everything seized in an egregious case with flagrant misconduct, this isn’t one: “And as in Bradford and Kraft, we conclude that the facts here do not warrant this extreme remedy.” “According to … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Nexus, Overbreadth, Standing | Comments Off on Cal.: Partial overbreadth can lead to suppression in egregious cases with flagrant constitutional violations, but this isn’t one

NY3: Entry into def’s stairwell was apparently illegal, but officers knocked at the door at the top of the stairs and got consent; this was attenuated

Officers entered the stairwell up to defendant’s second floor apartment. It was contended that the entry was unreasonable because the stairwell was part of defendant’s tenancy. At the top of the stairs, however, officers knocked and gained consent to enter. … Continue reading

Posted in Attenuation, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on NY3: Entry into def’s stairwell was apparently illegal, but officers knocked at the door at the top of the stairs and got consent; this was attenuated

CA8: Hot pursuit justified entry into bank robbery suspect’s home

Hot pursuit was shown for entry into defendant’s home after a trail of evidence led officers there. At the door they could see young children inside and someone on the stairs even though the woman answering the door insisted no … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Hot pursuit, Standing | Comments Off on CA8: Hot pursuit justified entry into bank robbery suspect’s home

NE declines to apply exclusionary rule to first interpretation of statute for DUI stop out of officer’s jurisdiction

The officer made a DUI stop outside his jurisdiction, and state law makes that important for his authority. The statute also has Fourth Amendment implications. And, the stop was with probable cause. Because the statute had not been interpreted like … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception | Comments Off on NE declines to apply exclusionary rule to first interpretation of statute for DUI stop out of officer’s jurisdiction

E.D.Tenn.: Items unreasonably seized under SW as outside its scope still not returned because they are forfeitable

Some of the items seized under the warrant were named or were covered by plain view when the police got inside. Some are excludable, but they aren’t returned because the government intends to forfeit. United States v. Abdul-Latif, 2023 U.S. … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Forfeiture, Ineffective assistance, Overseizure, Scope of search, Waiver | Comments Off on E.D.Tenn.: Items unreasonably seized under SW as outside its scope still not returned because they are forfeitable

OH8: Extraterritorial stop by LEO doesn’t violate 4A, and exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to statutory violations

An extraterritorial stop by an officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to statutory violations, here especially because of public safety concerns. City of Fairview Park v. Bowman, 2023-Ohio-4210, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 4047 (8th … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Ineffective assistance, Probable cause, Qualified immunity, Reasonableness | Comments Off on OH8: Extraterritorial stop by LEO doesn’t violate 4A, and exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to statutory violations

NC: Search incident doesn’t apply to hit-and-run; automobile exception didn’t apply to car partly submerged in ditch

Defendant was the passenger in a car owned by her parents involved in a hit-and-run that fled the scene and ended up in a ditch. The driver ran off because he said he had warrants. She gave the driver’s name. … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Exclusionary rule, Inventory, Search incident | Comments Off on NC: Search incident doesn’t apply to hit-and-run; automobile exception didn’t apply to car partly submerged in ditch

M.D.Fla.: Ptf can’t block documentary about his case

Plaintiff seeks to block airing of a documentary about his case because it would interfere with his collateral attack. Denied. Takhvar v. Warner Bros. Discovery Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163006 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 17, 2023)*:

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: Ptf can’t block documentary about his case

MO: Failure to allow DUI suspect to contact lawyer before BAC test doesn’t require suppression

The state’s statutory failure to allow defendant to contact a lawyer before a BAC test doesn’t require suppression of the BAC test. Dunbar v. Dir. of Revenue, 2023 Mo. App. LEXIS 582 (Aug. 15, 2023). “Movant provides no facts or … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Drug or alcohol testing, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on MO: Failure to allow DUI suspect to contact lawyer before BAC test doesn’t require suppression

CA4: Govt conceded delay for dog, but can’t show it was with RS

The government concedes that there was delay during the stop, but it was all without reasonable suspicion. The officer was looking for other summonses on defendant, including child support orders, where he had no idea there were any. “Finally, Deputy … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion, State constitution | Comments Off on CA4: Govt conceded delay for dog, but can’t show it was with RS

CA3: The search exceeding the scope of a warrant justified suppression

The search exceeding the scope of a warrant justified suppression: “But here, the benefit of suppression is neither marginal nor nonexistent. The agents exceeded the scope of authority conferred by the warrant when they either ignored or disregarded the risk … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Franks doctrine, Scope of search | Comments Off on CA3: The search exceeding the scope of a warrant justified suppression

CA10: Civil remedy for violation of Posse Comitatus Act, not exclusion

The remedy for a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act is civil, not exclusion. United States v. King, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 19052 (10th Cir. July 25, 2023) (denying COA). “On the whole, the factors outlined in Chavez provide mixed … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Ineffective assistance, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on CA10: Civil remedy for violation of Posse Comitatus Act, not exclusion

E.D.Pa.: Dismissal not the remedy for a 4A violation

“But in any event, even where Fourth Amendment violations have occurred—which, the Court takes pains to restate, is not the case here—a dismissal of an indictment is generally not the appropriate remedy. United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361, 365-66, … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on E.D.Pa.: Dismissal not the remedy for a 4A violation

E.D.Mich.: Failure to file SW return doesn’t require suppression

Failure to file the warrant return doesn’t require suppression. It’s a curable ministerial act. Besides, the defendant can’t show prejudice. As to the merits, the search warrant was issued with probable cause and the good faith exception applies in any … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Plain view, feel, smell, Staleness, Warrant papers | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Failure to file SW return doesn’t require suppression

C.D.Cal.: Defense counsel can’t make a false argument belied by evidence the govt. agreed to suppress

Defense counsel’s closing argument that was flatly contradicted by evidence the government elected to not put in in response to a motion to suppress maybe could have come in. Defense counsel can’t make a false argument to the jury without … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on C.D.Cal.: Defense counsel can’t make a false argument belied by evidence the govt. agreed to suppress

OH1: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to statutory violations

The exclusionary rule applies only to constitutional violations, not statutory, and a violation of the probation search statute is not subject to exclusion. State v. Borger, 2023-Ohio-2025, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 2044 (1st Dist. June 21, 2023). “While we note … Continue reading

Posted in Abandonment, Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on OH1: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to statutory violations

CA7: The remedy for an overbroad SW is a motion to suppress, not a motion to dismiss

An alleged overbroad email search warrant is pursued by a motion to suppress, not a motion to dismiss. “The remedy for such Fourth Amendment violations in a criminal proceeding is suppression of the evidence, not dismissal of the indictment or … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Exclusionary rule, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on CA7: The remedy for an overbroad SW is a motion to suppress, not a motion to dismiss

CA10: Despite SW’s overbreadth, executing officers understood the crime under investigation; GFE applies

The warrant was previously held overbroad and the case was remanded to the district court for findings on the good faith exception. In this second appeal, the good faith exception applies. The officers understood the limits in the warrant to … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, Seizure | Comments Off on CA10: Despite SW’s overbreadth, executing officers understood the crime under investigation; GFE applies

S.D.W.Va.: No 4A right to leaving SW at scene of search

Searching officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by not leaving a copy of the search warrant, let alone the original. Carter v. Luciano, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101723 (S.D. W. Va. June 12, 2023).* The search warrant was based … Continue reading

Posted in Body searches, Exclusionary rule, Prison and jail searches, Warrant papers | Comments Off on S.D.W.Va.: No 4A right to leaving SW at scene of search

CA9: Joint Cambodian-U.S. search unlawful under Cambodian law not unlawful here; exclusionary rule not applied

Defendant was the subject of a joint raid in Cambodia by local and U.S. officers. The search of defendant’s room was held unlawful under Cambodian law because there was no written consent of the owner, something with no counterpart in … Continue reading

Posted in Conflict of laws, Exclusionary rule, Foreign searches, Franks doctrine, Particularity | Comments Off on CA9: Joint Cambodian-U.S. search unlawful under Cambodian law not unlawful here; exclusionary rule not applied