Category Archives: Exclusionary rule

OH10: Window tint violation justified impoundment and inventory, even though discretionary

Under the inventory policy, the police had the discretion to impound vehicles with excessive window tint, even though they did not apply impoundment uniformly. State v. Hall-Johnson, 2022-Ohio-3512, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 3308 (10th Dist. Sep. 30, 2022). An investigation … Continue reading

Posted in Custody, Exclusionary rule, Inventory, Search | Comments Off on OH10: Window tint violation justified impoundment and inventory, even though discretionary

D.V.I.: 911 call from a child was exigency to go to the back door too

A 911 call from a child on the premises was exigency for going to the door. When the door was open, the police could see through to the backyard that there were marijuana plants growing there. The initial exigency, however, … Continue reading

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.V.I.: 911 call from a child was exigency to go to the back door too

IA: Federal reverse silver platter of anticipatory SW was valid

Defendant was the target of an anticipatory federal search warrant for drugs. The federal government instead let the state prosecute. The Iowa constitution, however, does not permit anticipatory search warrants. Defense counsel didn’t raise the state constitutional issue before trial. … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipatory warrant, Cell phones, Consent, Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on IA: Federal reverse silver platter of anticipatory SW was valid

MA: Def not prejudiced by third party’s response to SW

A third party in possession of Medicaid records was served with a search warrant, and appellant complains of the procedural nature of the third party’s response. [Aside from no standing,] Appellant doesn’t even attempt to show that the exclusionary rule … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Exclusionary rule, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on MA: Def not prejudiced by third party’s response to SW

MI: Even if using a drone to take pictures in zoning dispute violated 4A, exclusionary rule does not apply, and the action below was remedial not punitive

The use of a drone to take pictures by a city contractor in case over a zoning ordinance violation probably did not violate any Fourth Amendment right. But even if it did, the exclusionary rule should not apply in this … Continue reading

Posted in Drones, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on MI: Even if using a drone to take pictures in zoning dispute violated 4A, exclusionary rule does not apply, and the action below was remedial not punitive

W.D.N.C.: Not 4A violation to order def to keep hands visible

It is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment to tell the defendant to keep his hands visible and not reach in the car during a stop. If a person can be ordered out of the car for officer safety, … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonableness, Seizure | Comments Off on W.D.N.C.: Not 4A violation to order def to keep hands visible

S.D.N.Y.: Even illegally seized evidence could be used at sentencing

Defendant’s claim of illegal search is moot for the trial because the government says it’s not using it. It could, however, come up at sentencing. “In United States v. Tejada, the Second Circuit held that ‘[a]bsent a showing that officers … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Inventory, Staleness | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Even illegally seized evidence could be used at sentencing

S.D.Ga.: Exclusionary rule wouldn’t apply to equal protection challenge to stop

A subjective intent (Whren) argument not presented to the USMJ is rejected. Even if the court got to the merits, the exclusionary rule wouldn’t apply to an equal protection challenge. United States v. Lewis, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115137 (S.D. … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonableness | Comments Off on S.D.Ga.: Exclusionary rule wouldn’t apply to equal protection challenge to stop

M.D.Ga.: Dropping cell phone in flight from wrecked car is abandonment

A series of alleged crimes and other actions of the defendant was probable cause to search defendant’s phone found in his car. [There is no nexus to the crimes mentioned in the opinion, so I submit it’s wrong on this … Continue reading

Posted in Abandonment, Exclusionary rule, Knock and talk, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on M.D.Ga.: Dropping cell phone in flight from wrecked car is abandonment

E.D.Pa.: Stop without RS still leads to PC and no exclusion

The stop was without reasonable suspicion, but the court finds the subsequent search incident based on probable cause from the stop reasonable and refuses to apply the exclusionary rule. United States v. Harris, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97002 (E.D.Pa. May … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on E.D.Pa.: Stop without RS still leads to PC and no exclusion

OK: Exclusionary rule applies in civil cases under state constitution

The exclusionary rule applies to Oklahoma City’s effort to enforce a warrantless entry to seize and forfeit birds in apparent distress. Oklahoma applies the exclusionary rule in most civil cases under its state constitutional provision against unreasonable searches. There was … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion, State constitution, Waiver | Comments Off on OK: Exclusionary rule applies in civil cases under state constitution

MI directs its CoA to consider application of exclusionary rule in zoning case

The Michigan Supreme Court remanded Long Lake Twp. v. Maxon, 2021 Mich. App. LEXIS 1819 (Mar. 18, 2021) (posted here) to determine below whether the exclusionary rule should apply in a zoning case. Long Lake Twp. v. Maxon, 2022 Mich. … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Mail and packages, Prison and jail searches, Reasonable suspicion, Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters | Comments Off on MI directs its CoA to consider application of exclusionary rule in zoning case

N.D.Ga.: Pro forma objection to R&R doesn’t articulate argument, so it’s waived

Defendant didn’t fairly articulate his objections to the R&R, so his objection is waived. United States v. Hill, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83707 (N.D.Ga. May 9, 2022). There was probable cause for this search authorization, and the good faith exception … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance, Issue preclusion, Military searches, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion, Waiver | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: Pro forma objection to R&R doesn’t articulate argument, so it’s waived

CA10: “[N]o exclusionary rule for evidence gained through … entrapment”

“[T]here is no exclusionary rule for evidence gained through conduct later deemed to be entrapment.” United States v. Christian, 754 Fed. Appx. 747, 750 (10th Cir. 2018). United States v. Christian, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 12255 (10th Cir. May 6, … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Franks doctrine, Overseizure | Comments Off on CA10: “[N]o exclusionary rule for evidence gained through … entrapment”

OH12: Any error in SW return has no effect on search

Any error in the search warrant return does not affect the search itself. Therefore, it can’t form a basis for suppression. Defendant also disclaimed any interest in the property at the time of the search. State v. McClendon, 2022-Ohio-1441, 2022 … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Prison and jail searches, Reasonable suspicion, Strip search, Warrant papers | Comments Off on OH12: Any error in SW return has no effect on search

Cal.: Exclusionary rule does not apply in child dependency litigation

The exclusionary rule does not apply in child dependency litigation. In re Christopher L., 2022 Cal. LEXIS 2313 (Apr. 25, 2022) (recognizing rule). “Hecke is correct that Detective Compton did not provide details of BSC’s criminal history or a description … Continue reading

Posted in Custody, Exclusionary rule, Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on Cal.: Exclusionary rule does not apply in child dependency litigation

VI: Procedural errors in telephonic SW not suppressible without recklessness or bad faith

The procedural deficiencies in obtaining the telephonic warrants did not render them invalid. There was no showing of bad faith by the officers. People v. Glasford, 2022 VI SUPER 42, 2022 V.I. LEXIS 40 (Apr. 19, 2022). A person detained … Continue reading

Posted in Border search, Cell phones, Consent, Exclusionary rule, Voluntariness | Comments Off on VI: Procedural errors in telephonic SW not suppressible without recklessness or bad faith

D.Me.: Settled law at the time means exclusionary rule not applied, even if the law was later changing

Officers relied on settled law in this circuit that the search incident was valid. Maybe it wouldn’t be later, but it was at the time. The exclusionary rule should not be applied under Davis. “Given the similarity of these two … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception, Standards of review | Comments Off on D.Me.: Settled law at the time means exclusionary rule not applied, even if the law was later changing

AF: Despite search authorization not permitting this search and GFE not applying, exclusionary rule should not apply; no deterrence

The search authorization for this service member’s cell phone was overbroad and failed to include text messages which were at issue. This failed Leon’s good faith exception: “We disagree, and find the fourth Leon exception clearly applies in this case—that … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception, Overseizure, Scope of search | Comments Off on AF: Despite search authorization not permitting this search and GFE not applying, exclusionary rule should not apply; no deterrence

N.-M.: In applying cost-benefits analysis of exclusionary rule, this was more than mere negligence and exclusion was necessary

In a military prosecution for adultery, the military judge found the search of defendant’s cell phone unreasonable and a violation of the Fourth Amendment but refused to suppress in its cost-benefits analysis. The court of appeals disagreed and found the … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on N.-M.: In applying cost-benefits analysis of exclusionary rule, this was more than mere negligence and exclusion was necessary