Category Archives: Exclusionary rule

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

D.Nev.: Traffic stop devolving into investigation of violation of parole conditions was without RS

“The Court finds that Chronister unlawfully prolonged the traffic stop by pursuing an investigation into whether or not Lewis was in violation of his parole conditions.” “The Court finds that Chronister did not believe at the time of the traffic … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception, Inevitable discovery, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.Nev.: Traffic stop devolving into investigation of violation of parole conditions was without RS

CA4: Exclusionary rule does not apply to violations of Posse Comitatus Act

An investigation by the DoD Inspector General is an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act. Besides, a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act is not subject to the exclusionary rule. United States v. Vaxima, Inc., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 5315 … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Exclusionary rule, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on CA4: Exclusionary rule does not apply to violations of Posse Comitatus Act

AL adopts new crime exception to exclusionary rule

When being arrested, defendant pulled away from officers in his room and dove for his bed and reached under a pillow. Officers thought he was going for a gun, and a melee ensued. He was charged with assault and resisting … Continue reading

Posted in Attenuation, Exclusionary rule, Independent source | Comments Off on AL adopts new crime exception to exclusionary rule

DC: Even if def was illegally arrested, his identification is not suppressed

Even if defendant was illegally arrested, his identification is not suppressed. Hood v. United States, 2022 D.C. App. LEXIS 57 (Feb. 10, 2022):

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on DC: Even if def was illegally arrested, his identification is not suppressed

CA3: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to sentencing unless enhancing sentence was reason for the search

The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to sentencing factors unless the illegal search was intended to enhance the sentence. United States v. Torres, 926 F.2d 321 (3d Cir. 1991). “[W]e refused to follow Verdugo in Torres because the facts in Torres … Continue reading

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on CA3: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to sentencing unless enhancing sentence was reason for the search

MS: The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in civil tort cases for wrongful conviction

“Sedric Sutton seeks compensation under Mississippi Code Sections 11-44-1 to -15 (Rev. 2019), Compensation to Victims of Wrongful Conviction and Imprisonment, after his conviction of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute was vacated by this Court.” The … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on MS: The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in civil tort cases for wrongful conviction

TX: Exclusionary rule is statutory and harmless error analysis required

The Texas exclusionary rule is statutory and not a constitutional remedy since 1922. Thus, harmless error analysis is required, and the case remanded for that. Holder v. State, 2022 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 72 (Feb. 2, 2022). “Accordingly, under the … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Plain view, feel, smell, Probation / Parole search, Seizure | Comments Off on TX: Exclusionary rule is statutory and harmless error analysis required

CA1: DoJ MMJ appropriations rider does not implicate the exclusionary rule

The DoJ appropriations rider* that limits spending any federal funds of medical marijuana-type cases does not permit the court of appeals enjoining the prosecution by interlocutory appeal. That does not implicate the grand jury’s power to consider the case, nor … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on CA1: DoJ MMJ appropriations rider does not implicate the exclusionary rule

CA11: FBI’s negligence in taking six months to search def’s truck and computers did not require suppression

“Bruce Nicholson, an Alabama man convicted of federal child sex crimes and sentenced to life in prison, challenges his conviction on direct appeal. The main question in this criminal appeal is, as it often is, whether a criminal should ‘go … Continue reading

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Exclusionary rule, Informant hearsay, Social media warrants | Comments Off on CA11: FBI’s negligence in taking six months to search def’s truck and computers did not require suppression

CA1: Def preserved Rodriguez argument without citing it

Defendant preserved his Rodriguez argument by stating that the stop was continued without reasonable suspicion but not citing the case. Nevertheless, he loses on the merits. United States v. Reyes, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 1417 (1st Cir. Jan. 19, 2022). … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Exclusionary rule, Ineffective assistance, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA1: Def preserved Rodriguez argument without citing it

CA7: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in civil cases

Plaintiff was arrested for possession of brass knuckles. The state court suppressed, so the state’s attorney nolle prossed. He sued under 1983. There was probable cause to arrest, and the exclusionary rule [even if the state court was right, which … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on CA7: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in civil cases

W.D.Ky.: Arrest warrant doesn’t require executing officer to check into PC for it

If there is an arrest warrant, the executing officer doesn’t have to look behind it to determine its validity. Other alleged probable cause for defendant’s stop is immaterial. United States v. Cox, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7551 (W.D.Ky. Jan. 14, … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Exclusionary rule, Issue preclusion, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on W.D.Ky.: Arrest warrant doesn’t require executing officer to check into PC for it