Category Archives: Exclusionary rule

KY: 21-month delay for SW for cell phone not unreasonable where def in custody

Officers had probable cause and nexus and showed particularity to defendant’s cell phone. He’d previously been accused of recording undressed women and was involved in an upskirting. Here he’d been accused of sex with drugged women and recording some of … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Ineffective assistance, Inventory, Reasonableness | Comments Off on KY: 21-month delay for SW for cell phone not unreasonable where def in custody

S.D.Miss.: Even suppressed drugs can be figured into drug weight for sentencing

Even if a motion to suppress had been pursued and defendant prevailed, suppressed drug weight can be used at sentencing. United States v. Coleman, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10826 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 23, 2023). Pro se plaintiffs fail to state … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Nexus, Open fields | Comments Off on S.D.Miss.: Even suppressed drugs can be figured into drug weight for sentencing

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

CA6: Erroneous LEO database info still justified stop

Officers had information from the state DL and LPN database that defendant’s car had no insurance. That justified the stop even if it turned out to be erroneous. United States v. Conley, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 856 (6th Cir. Jan. … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Nexus, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA6: Erroneous LEO database info still justified stop

D.Minn.: Involuntary civil detainees in a sex offender program have no REP in their rooms

Involuntary civil detainees in a sex offender program have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their rooms. White v. Dayton, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71 (D. Minn. Jan. 3, 2023). Habeas petitioner’s claim that a bad photo ID led to … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Exclusionary rule, Issue preclusion, Prison and jail searches | Comments Off on D.Minn.: Involuntary civil detainees in a sex offender program have no REP in their rooms

OR: Computer hard drive with contraband could be destroyed with guilty plea

By defendant’s plea to a sex and child porn offense, the state could destroy the computer hard drives where the contraband was found. The seizure was in 2003, and the trial was 2017. State v. Forker, 323 Or. App. 323 … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Issue preclusion, Probable cause, Probation / Parole search, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on OR: Computer hard drive with contraband could be destroyed with guilty plea

CA8: “[E]ven if a technical violation of Nebraska law occurred when signing the warrant that is not a basis for suppressing the evidence” under 4A

“[E]ven if a technical violation of Nebraska law occurred when signing the warrant that is not a basis for suppressing the evidence” under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Becker, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 35626 (8th Cir. Dec. 27, 2022). … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Exclusionary rule, Probation / Parole search, Reasonableness, Seizure | Comments Off on CA8: “[E]ven if a technical violation of Nebraska law occurred when signing the warrant that is not a basis for suppressing the evidence” under 4A

CA6: 4A generally doesn’t apply to sentencing enhancements

“The Fourth Amendment does not apply to sentencing enhancements. … We have recognized a possible exception to this rule—when officers illegally seized the evidence for the very purpose of enhancing the defendant’s sentence—but Wyse makes no such allegation.” United States … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Informant hearsay, Qualified immunity, Staleness | Comments Off on CA6: 4A generally doesn’t apply to sentencing enhancements

AK: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to DV civil proceeding

The exclusionary rule does not apply in Domestic Violence Protective Order proceeding. Green v. State, 2022 Alas. LEXIS 140 (Dec. 14, 2022) (due process claim). Multiple calls between the CI and defendant arranging a fentanyl deal and defendant showing up … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Probable cause, Standards of review | Comments Off on AK: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to DV civil proceeding

CA3: Scope of curtilage argument changed on appeal and thus waived

This case involved an argument about what is curtilage around a tent and firepit. Explosives were found outside this curtilage. On appeal, the scope of curtilage changed, and it’s waived. United States v. Madziarek, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 34076 (3d … Continue reading

Posted in Curtilage, Exclusionary rule, Probation / Parole search, Waiver | Comments Off on CA3: Scope of curtilage argument changed on appeal and thus waived

W.D.Pa.: All Writs Act proceeding for tracking order is a judicial proceeding for common law right of access to records

An All Writs Act proceeding by the government to track someone in real time back in 2020 is a judicial record subject to the common law right of disclosure of court records. In re Forbes Media LLC, 2022 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Exclusionary rule, Tracking warrant, Warrant papers | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: All Writs Act proceeding for tracking order is a judicial proceeding for common law right of access to records

OH1: Failure to follow probation search statute doesn’t require exclusion

Defendant’s argument that the probation search statute wasn’t followed doesn’t require exclusion. That’s for constitutional violations. State v. Clardy, 2022-Ohio-4300, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 4070 (1st Dist. Dec. 2, 2022); State v. Kellett, 2022-Ohio-4340, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 4088 (5th … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion, Waiver | Comments Off on OH1: Failure to follow probation search statute doesn’t require exclusion

D.S.C.: Court is “troubled” by methods of search, but exclusion isn’t remedy

Defendant’s claim there wasn’t any search warrant and that he wasn’t shown one is rejected. He came out of the house with his hands up and empty, and an officer is shown on bodycam handing him a paper and him … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Scope of search | Comments Off on D.S.C.: Court is “troubled” by methods of search, but exclusion isn’t remedy

W.D.Ky.: Clerical error in filestamp of SW return not prejudicial error

Relying on a file mark stamp on a search warrant return that was a year and a few days earlier, defendant claims the issuing judge and officers conspired to back date everything to coverup an illegal search. That’s speculative. The … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Issue preclusion, Plain view, feel, smell | Comments Off on W.D.Ky.: Clerical error in filestamp of SW return not prejudicial error

N.D.Ind.: The exclusionary rule is not the remedy for a high-speed chase to capture defendant

The exclusionary rule is not the remedy for a high-speed chase to capture defendant. United States v. Tyms, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204894 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 10, 2022) Defendant was finally in custody when the police sought to take his … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, DNA, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on N.D.Ind.: The exclusionary rule is not the remedy for a high-speed chase to capture defendant

CA10: Not unreasonable for state court to not apply exclusionary rule in sentencing

Under the unreasonable application standard of 2254, the Utah court did not unreasonably conclude the exclusionary rule would not be applied in the sentencing phase of a criminal trial. Menzies v. Powell, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 30789 (10th Cir. Nov. … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA10: Not unreasonable for state court to not apply exclusionary rule in sentencing

D.D.C.: When stop was extended without RS, def’s assault on officers was not attenuated under Brown

The court finds the stop without reasonable suspicion. It was allegedly justified by paper LPN that didn’t match the car as without reasonable suspicion because the tags weren’t run until after the stop. That and other factors don’t make reasonable … Continue reading

Posted in Attenuation, Exclusionary rule, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on D.D.C.: When stop was extended without RS, def’s assault on officers was not attenuated under Brown

OH1: No exclusionary rule for this alleged statutory violation for lack of notice of a probation search condition

Defendant’s contention the probation department failed to notify him of his search condition was a statutory violation but there is no exclusionary remedy for that. State v. Hayden, 2022-Ohio-3933, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 3721 (1st Dist. Nov. 4, 2022). In … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on OH1: No exclusionary rule for this alleged statutory violation for lack of notice of a probation search condition

D.N.M.: There is no exclusionary rule under Rule 41(g)

An action for return of property under Rule 41(g) is not a motion to suppress and does not invoke any exclusionary rule. Eastman v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188438 (D.N.M. Oct. 14, 2022):

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on D.N.M.: There is no exclusionary rule under Rule 41(g)

OH: Exclusionary rule does not apply to statutory violations, here a parole search

Defendant signed a consent to parole search form, but the statute says it has to be on reasonable grounds. Here, even if the statute was violated, the exclusionary rule applies to constitutional violations, not statutory ones. State v. Campbell, 2022-Ohio-3626, … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception, Ineffective assistance, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on OH: Exclusionary rule does not apply to statutory violations, here a parole search