Category Archives: Exclusionary rule

S.D.Ohio: “Failure to follow Internal Revenue manual does not mandate suppression of any evidence obtained in violation thereof.”

Tax records were collected in an audit.”Failure to follow Internal Revenue manual does not mandate suppression of any evidence obtained in violation thereof.” United States v. Wright, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167300 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 10, 2017). “[I]f an objectively … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on S.D.Ohio: “Failure to follow Internal Revenue manual does not mandate suppression of any evidence obtained in violation thereof.”

S.D.N.Y.: Exclusion warranted for stop without RS

Two plainclothes officers jumped out of a car and approached to men who fled. The court finds the officers didn’t identify themselves. This wasn’t reasonable suspicion, and the court finds exclusion warranted for the police conduct. United States v. Bell, … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Exclusion warranted for stop without RS

OH follows Hudson on knock-and-announce under state constitution

The Ohio Supreme Court follows Hudson under the state constitution and holds that a violation of knock-and-announce does not justify suppression of the search. The state constitution has been applied more broadly than the Fourth Amendment on occasion, but not … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Exclusionary rule, Knock and announce, State constitution | Comments Off on OH follows Hudson on knock-and-announce under state constitution

TX14: Private search in Texas not subject to statute exclusionary rule

Defendant’s girlfriend accessed his cell phones: his Android wasn’t password protected but his iPhone was but she knew the password. This was a private search, and the Texas statutory exclusionary rule doesn’t apply. Thomas v. State, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Plain view, feel, smell, Private search | Comments Off on TX14: Private search in Texas not subject to statute exclusionary rule

Idaho rejects Heien mistake of law under state constitution

Idaho rejects Heien mistake of law under state constitution. State v. Pettit, 2017 Ida. App. LEXIS 75 (Sept. 29, 2017):

Posted in Exclusionary rule, State constitution | Comments Off on Idaho rejects Heien mistake of law under state constitution

WA: Def’s new crime of obstruction wasn’t subject to suppression for illegal arrest

There is no general obligation to cooperate with the police, but there is a duty not to resist an arrest. Defendant’s obstruction was a new crime not subject to a motion to suppress for the alleged prior illegality of the … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on WA: Def’s new crime of obstruction wasn’t subject to suppression for illegal arrest

D.N.M.: Just because the officer would search again, despite the court’s order the 4A was violated, doesn’t mean he won’t be deterred because he should be

On the government’s motion to reconsider, it argues that the cost-benefits analysis of the exclusionary rule should be evaluated in terms of the fact the officer would have searched here no matter what, so there was nothing to deter. Yes, … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on D.N.M.: Just because the officer would search again, despite the court’s order the 4A was violated, doesn’t mean he won’t be deterred because he should be

ME: Officer’s crossing city limits in pursuit, even if a violation of statute, didn’t violate 4A

Even if the officer violated state law on his territorial jurisdiction, following defendant across the city limits into another town to make a traffic stop didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment and there is no reason to apply the exclusionary rule. … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on ME: Officer’s crossing city limits in pursuit, even if a violation of statute, didn’t violate 4A

N.-M. Ct.Crim.App.: Trial judge’s findings on deterrence for exclusion lacking, so remanded

Defendant was charged in Washington state court with child pornography after he was arrested in a prostitution sting and police obtained access to his cell phone by getting his password. The state court suppressed the search of the cell phone, … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Military searches | Comments Off on N.-M. Ct.Crim.App.: Trial judge’s findings on deterrence for exclusion lacking, so remanded

IL sustains arrest for firearm where statute authorizing arrest was later declared unconstitutional

Defendant was stopped under a statute later declared unconstitutional. Distinguishing prior authorities applying state law, the court holds that the “void ab initio” doctrine does not apply here, and the arrest, valid at the time, did not require suppression of … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception | Comments Off on IL sustains arrest for firearm where statute authorizing arrest was later declared unconstitutional

TX9: Texas provides no exclusionary remedy for illegal search and seizure in forfeiture cases

Texas provides no exclusionary remedy for illegal search and seizure in forfeiture cases. $102,450.00 in United States Currency v. State, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 5761 (Tex. App. – Beaumont June 22, 2017):

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Forfeiture | Comments Off on TX9: Texas provides no exclusionary remedy for illegal search and seizure in forfeiture cases

Mapp v. Ohio decided 56 years ago today

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), on application of the exclusionary rule to the states decided 56 years ago today. Ironically, the exclusionary rule issue wasn’t even argued in the briefs, as noted by the dissent, id. at 676-77. … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, SCOTUS | Comments Off on Mapp v. Ohio decided 56 years ago today

Hudson gutted the knock-and-announce rule by making it purely optional 11 years ago today

Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006), decided 11 years ago today, unraveling the knock-and-announce rule of Wilson v. Arkansas (1995) and Richards v. Wisconsin (1997). It’s constitutionally required, it saves lives, it’s far more civil in a civil society, … Continue reading

Posted in Attenuation, Exclusionary rule, Knock and announce | Comments Off on Hudson gutted the knock-and-announce rule by making it purely optional 11 years ago today

CA7: Exclusionary rule won’t be applied to identity in an illegal reentry case

The exclusionary rule won’t be applied to suppress the identity of an undocumented person leading to illegal reentry prosecution (relying on Hudson). United States v. Chagoya-Morales, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10277 (7th Cir. June 9, 2017):

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on CA7: Exclusionary rule won’t be applied to identity in an illegal reentry case

TN: TN SCt has to adopt Herring under exclusionary rule; Ct.Crim.App. can’t

Despite the Tennessee Supreme Court’s recent changes in exclusionary rule jurisprudence, the court has not yet adopted Herring on good faith reliance on an out of date list. This court will not do it–that court has to. State v. McElrath, … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception | Comments Off on TN: TN SCt has to adopt Herring under exclusionary rule; Ct.Crim.App. can’t

Texas finally adopts the Davis good faith exception to its statutory exclusionary rule

Texas finally adopts the Davis good faith exception to its statutory exclusionary rule to a pre-Jardines dog sniff in a wide ranging and scholarly opinion surveying all the federal circuits on Davis and attenuation. McClintock v. State, 2017 Tex. Crim. … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception | Comments Off on Texas finally adopts the Davis good faith exception to its statutory exclusionary rule

S.D.W.Va.: Flagrant violation of 4A with warrantless GPS on def’s car doesn’t get suppressed because of def’s lack of standing at time of search

The police flagrantly violated the Fourth Amendment by placing a GPS device on a car without a warrant. Defendant was the target, but he’d sold and relinquished control of the car to another days later by the time of the … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Standing | Comments Off on S.D.W.Va.: Flagrant violation of 4A with warrantless GPS on def’s car doesn’t get suppressed because of def’s lack of standing at time of search

D.Conn.: Protective weapons search of nightstand for a weapon invalid where def removed from house in handcuffs

The court does not believe an officer who claimed to have seen crack cocaine in a black opaque drawstring bag that was closed in the first search of his person. The court also does not believe that a much later … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Protective sweep | Comments Off on D.Conn.: Protective weapons search of nightstand for a weapon invalid where def removed from house in handcuffs

AZ: Non-consensual blood draw DUI provision is unconstitutional as applied, but the Davis GFE applies

Non-consensual blood draw DUI provision is unconstitutional as applied, but the Davis good faith exception applies here. Defendant was airlifted to a Nevada hospital for the blood draw. The trial court didn’t make findings on whether Nevada or Arizona law … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing, Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on AZ: Non-consensual blood draw DUI provision is unconstitutional as applied, but the Davis GFE applies

D.Conn.: Shots fired call is not per se exigency; totality standard must apply

A shots fired call is not carte blanche exigency–the totality of circumstances must still be examined. Here, the court finds no exigency for the warrantless entry or protective sweep and that the exclusionary rule should be applied. The costs aren’t … Continue reading

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Exclusionary rule, Protective sweep | Comments Off on D.Conn.: Shots fired call is not per se exigency; totality standard must apply