Category Archives: Motion to suppress

M.D.Fla.: Lack of clarity of motion to suppress leads to denial

“Defendant’s motion is not a model of clarity.” “As an overarching concern, Defendant has not met his burden to be ‘sufficiently definite, specific, detailed, and nonconjectural’ in presenting a substantial claim as to either warrant.” “Defendant has not presented any … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Motion to suppress, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: Lack of clarity of motion to suppress leads to denial

D.P.R.: “A motion to suppress is not a discovery tool.”

Defendant’s motion to suppress searches of cell phones is denied because he doesn’t show any standing in the phones that were searched. “A motion to suppress is not a discovery tool. Without a basic factual premise, the Court cannot discern … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on D.P.R.: “A motion to suppress is not a discovery tool.”

CT: Action to quash SW before criminal case became moot when charge filed

The petitioner sought to quash search warrants when there was no criminal case. After the criminal cases were finally filed, this action was moot because the claim could be brought within the criminal cases. In re Police Case Nos.: Meriden … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress, Probable cause, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CT: Action to quash SW before criminal case became moot when charge filed

W.D.Pa.: A request to show hands requires RS

The facts not being in dispute, no hearing was required on defendant’s motion to suppress. A request to show hands required reasonable suspicion. United States v. Chambers, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148692 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 19, 2022). Defendant alluded to … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Motion to suppress, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: A request to show hands requires RS

D.Haw.: A frivolous motion to suppress can harm the cause

Not filing a frivolous motion to suppress isn’t ineffective assistance of counsel, and it could harm the cause more than help. United States v. Sesepasara, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147899 (D. Haw. Aug. 18, 2022):

Posted in Motion to suppress | Comments Off on D.Haw.: A frivolous motion to suppress can harm the cause

UT: IAC shown for not challenging dog alert

The initial dog alert here did not provide probable cause for search of defendant’s vehicle. Thus, defense counsel was ineffective for not pursuing a Fourth Amendment challenge. “In summary, based on the record before us, a motion to suppress the … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Dog sniff, Ineffective assistance, Motion to suppress, Standing | Comments Off on UT: IAC shown for not challenging dog alert

S.D.Cal.: 4A violations are for suppression, not dismissal

“Searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment do not require dismissing an indictment; instead, the remedy is suppressing the evidence at trial.” United States v. Ramirez-Aleman, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77436 (S.D.Cal. Apr. 26, 2022). Defendant officers have … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Motion to suppress, Probable cause | Comments Off on S.D.Cal.: 4A violations are for suppression, not dismissal

ID: If a motion to suppress is untimely, at least show good cause for the delay

The trial court did not err in denying a motion to suppress as untimely without inquiring into possible good cause or excusable neglect for the delay where the defense offered nothing on that. Defendant stripping down and leaving his clothes … Continue reading

Posted in Abandonment, Motion to suppress, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on ID: If a motion to suppress is untimely, at least show good cause for the delay

S.D.N.Y.: A reasonably conducted eviction is not a 4A violation

“Most eviction-type seizures do not violate the Fourth Amendment. Thomas v. Cohen, 304 F.3d 563, 574 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 71, 113 S. Ct. 538, 121 L. Ed. 2d 450 (1992)). Seizing an … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Motion to suppress, Probable cause, Seizure, Warrant execution | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: A reasonably conducted eviction is not a 4A violation

MA: Late disclosure of product of search wasn’t exculpatory so no prejudice

Defendant sought in discovery the call log from the search of his cell phone. The state didn’t provide it timely. It was not exculpatory in trial counsel’s view because it contradicted the defense witnesses and whatever defense they had for … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on MA: Late disclosure of product of search wasn’t exculpatory so no prejudice

N.D.Fla.: § 2241 habeas can’t be used to review another USDJ’s denial of a motion to suppress

A defendant can’t use a 2241 habeas as a way to appeal denial of a motion to suppress by another district judge. Butler v. Cook, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 247876 (N.D.Fla. Nov. 30, 2021). Controlled buys from defendant a few … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress, Probable cause, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on N.D.Fla.: § 2241 habeas can’t be used to review another USDJ’s denial of a motion to suppress

DE: Mere citation of a case in motion to suppress didn’t put state and court on notice as to other issues

Defendant’s citation of a case in his motion to suppress that was on point to only one issue but not the others was insufficient to put the state and court on notice as to the others. State v. Hollar, 2021 … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on DE: Mere citation of a case in motion to suppress didn’t put state and court on notice as to other issues

N.D.Cal.: Rule 41(g) is for return of things, not suppression of evidence

Rule 41(g) is only for return of seized things, and it can’t be used to suppress evidence, especially in a state court. Christie v. United States, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231113 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 2, 2021). Defendant’s motion to suppress cites … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, State constitution | Comments Off on N.D.Cal.: Rule 41(g) is for return of things, not suppression of evidence

CA6: No REP in truck driven without authority and probably stolen

Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a truck that was, for all intents and purposes, stolen from a mentally ill woman who could not remember who it was loaned to or when. Moreover, he denied knowledge of the … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Motion to suppress, Standing | Comments Off on CA6: No REP in truck driven without authority and probably stolen

CA1: Burden on “neutral and detached magistrate” is on defense, and here the showing was speculative

The search warrant issuing magistrate’s husband was a doctor and a potential victim of a DoS cyberattack at a children’s hospital in Boston, allegedly perpetrated for personal reasons. The claim the USMJ was not neutral and detached is speculative. “But … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Motion to suppress, Neutral and detached magistrate | Comments Off on CA1: Burden on “neutral and detached magistrate” is on defense, and here the showing was speculative

N.D.Ga.: No right to pre-execution litigation of an OSHA administrative SW

There is no right to a pre-enforcement motion to quash an OSHA administrative warrant, despite the fact the whole process occurs quickly. The company has a post-execution process to remedy alleged violations. United States v. Foundation Foods Group, 2021 U.S. … Continue reading

Posted in Administrative search, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: No right to pre-execution litigation of an OSHA administrative SW

CA7: Untimely filed suppression motion is waived

The three defendants filed untimely motions to suppress under the scheduling order; two were in the days before the trial and the third was during the trial. They were fact intensive and would have required a hearing. “Even on appeal, … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress, Waiver | Comments Off on CA7: Untimely filed suppression motion is waived

CA9: Dismissal of indictment for 4A extremely rare remedy; here, district court suppressed

Dismissal of the indictment for violations of the Fourth Amendment are strongly disfavored. Here, the district court suppressed the search, and the government dismissed counts. That’s remedy enough. United States v. Cano, 19-50240 (9th Cir. Aug. 31, 2021). Where the … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on CA9: Dismissal of indictment for 4A extremely rare remedy; here, district court suppressed

M.D.La.: Evidentiary objection to product of search isn’t addressed in a suppression motion

Defendant’s argument is really an evidentiary objection, not a ground to suppress. Suppression is denied. United States v. Sterling, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160728 (M.D.La. Aug. 24, 2021). “Here, the credited testimony of all three officers is that Deputy Lowe … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Consent, Franks doctrine, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on M.D.La.: Evidentiary objection to product of search isn’t addressed in a suppression motion

N.D.Okla.: Motion to suppress must allege basis to overcome GFE, too

Defendant’s motion to suppress must show a fact dispute to get a hearing, including on application of the good faith exception. United States v. Bailey, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138557 (N.D.Okla. July 26, 2021):

Posted in Good faith exception, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on N.D.Okla.: Motion to suppress must allege basis to overcome GFE, too