Category Archives: Exclusionary rule

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

S.D.N.Y.: Surveillance does not have to be constant for PC to exist

Defendant was stopped because officers had reason to believe that he was transporting parts for ghost guns from New England to a gun show in Pennsylvania, and he was stopped in New York City. There is no constitutional requirement that … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Probable cause | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Surveillance does not have to be constant for PC to exist

AZ: Confession obtained after Franks violation should have been suppressed, too

The trial court found a Franks violation from the officer overstating with reckless disregard the facts, and it suppressed the search. Then came defendant’s statements based on the false search warrant affidavit. The trial court did not suppress, but the … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance, Issue preclusion, Warrant papers | Comments Off on AZ: Confession obtained after Franks violation should have been suppressed, too

VA: Later adopted statutory exclusionary rule not retroactive

A statutory exclusionary rule for a particular action that was adopted after the search and seizure was not retroactive. Moore v. Commonwealth, 2023 Va. App. LEXIS 343 (CMay 30, 2023) (unpublished).* The totality shows reasonable suspicion to extend the stop … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion, Seizure | Comments Off on VA: Later adopted statutory exclusionary rule not retroactive

D.Colo.: Bank records have no REP so they can be obtained for restitution purposes

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in bank records, and the government can obtain them to enforce a restitution order. United States v. Osborn, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90076 (D. Colo. May 23, 2023). Defendant doesn’t get a Franks … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Franks doctrine, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on D.Colo.: Bank records have no REP so they can be obtained for restitution purposes

N.D.W.Va.: Checking on warrants of occupants of car reasonably extended the stop

Checking on the outstanding warrants on the occupants of the car reasonably extended the stop. United States v. Hamlet, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76568 (N.D. W.Va. May 2, 2023).* Presence of drugs in one’s car doesn’t make probable cause to … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on N.D.W.Va.: Checking on warrants of occupants of car reasonably extended the stop

N.D.W.Va.: Pulling open def’s pocket to search it was intentional and unreasonable; exclusionary rule applied

Pulling open defendant’s pocket to search it was intentional and required applying the exclusionary rule. United States v. Jenkins, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74739 (N.D. W.Va. Apr. 28, 2023). The close relationship between the participants supported probable cause. It was … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Exclusionary rule, Inventory, Probable cause | Comments Off on N.D.W.Va.: Pulling open def’s pocket to search it was intentional and unreasonable; exclusionary rule applied

E.D.Tenn.: Mislabeling SW attachments not worthy of exclusion

Accidental reverse numbering of Attachments A and B didn’t make the search warrant void. United States v. Deakins, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60866 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 6, 2023).* Plaintiff’s claim that the Director of National Intelligence violates the Fourth Amendment … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, F.R.Crim.P. 41, Particularity, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on E.D.Tenn.: Mislabeling SW attachments not worthy of exclusion

CAAF: Cost of exclusion outweigh benefits, so no exclusion

In a sex assault case, assuming the search of defendant’s cell phone was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, the court concludes that the exclusionary rule should not be applied. M.R.E. 311. The error, if there was one, was the commanding … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on CAAF: Cost of exclusion outweigh benefits, so no exclusion

VA: Smell of MJ from one person in car is PC to that person only

When the smell of marijuana is localized to one person, that’s the extent of the probable cause. If from the car, it’s the car. King v. Commonwealth, 2023 Va. App. LEXIS 213 (Apr. 4, 2023) (unpublished). The video showed that … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Exclusionary rule, Plain view, feel, smell | Comments Off on VA: Smell of MJ from one person in car is PC to that person only

S.D.N.Y.: The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in § 1983 cases

The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in § 1983 cases. Villafane v. City of N.Y., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52149 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2023). There was probable cause for the search warrant for defendant’s DNA. United States v. Burkhalter, 2023 U.S. … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Arrest or entry on arrest, DNA, Exclusionary rule, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in § 1983 cases

D.N.M.: Possession of a gun in car in Walmart parking lot wasn’t a crime and search for it under community caretaking function unreasonable

Police were called to a Walmart parking lot in Albuquerque because defendant was “unconscious” in his car in his car, and a gun was visible. The seizure of the gun and the interrogation surrounding it can’t be justified under the … Continue reading

Posted in Community caretaking function, Curtilage, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on D.N.M.: Possession of a gun in car in Walmart parking lot wasn’t a crime and search for it under community caretaking function unreasonable

ID rejects “reasonable mistake of law” and Heien under state constitution; state’s exclusionary rule is broader

Idaho declines to adopt the “reasonable mistake of law” rule and suppresses a search incident to a warrantless arrest for a completed misdemeanor. The state’s exclusionary rule isn’t just to deter illegal police misconduct – it is considerably more, and … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonableness, State constitution | Comments Off on ID rejects “reasonable mistake of law” and Heien under state constitution; state’s exclusionary rule is broader

CA6: Even if harassment was a basis to exclude a parole search, it wasn’t shown here

The exclusionary rule does not apply in supervised release revocation proceedings. Even if harassment by the officer was a basis to exclude, it wasn’t present here. United States v. Robinson, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 6756 (6th Cir. Mar. 21, 2023)* … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Custody, Exclusionary rule, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA6: Even if harassment was a basis to exclude a parole search, it wasn’t shown here

CA2: No REP shown in porch shared with neighbor

Defendant shared a porch with his neighbor and made no effort to show a reasonable expectation of privacy in it. United States v. Lewis, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 6689 (2d Cir. Mar. 21, 2023).* The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Probable cause, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on CA2: No REP shown in porch shared with neighbor

KS: Excessive force in unnecessary stop by PIT maneuver led to death of passenger which is suppressed

Defendant refused to stop for a broken windshield infraction, and he fled. The officer PITted his car, and the passenger died. Defendant was charged with murder for the passenger’s death. The trial court held that the seizure resulting in the … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on KS: Excessive force in unnecessary stop by PIT maneuver led to death of passenger which is suppressed

CA: Unreasonable stop and running warrants revealed def was on parole; suspicionless parole search unreasonable

A man on the street was stopped by police for no apparent reason. A records check revealed he was on parole with a warrantless search waiver on file. The warrantless search of his person was unreasonable, and the exclusionary rule … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA: Unreasonable stop and running warrants revealed def was on parole; suspicionless parole search unreasonable

NE: Failure to deliver SW to def not 4A violation and doesn’t warrant suppression

Defendant was the subject of a search warrant for a blood draw. The fact he wasn’t given a copy of the warrant doesn’t require reversal. He clearly knew what was going on. State v. Svendgard, 31 Neb. App. 596, 2023 … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Exclusionary rule, Forfeiture, Warrant papers | Comments Off on NE: Failure to deliver SW to def not 4A violation and doesn’t warrant suppression