Category Archives: Motion to suppress

AK: Overbroad part of cell phone SW was severable from the valid part, and that properly came in at trial

This cell phone search warrant was not particular and without probable cause as to “app data,” but it was as to text messages. “If this unlawful provision was the only provision of the warrant that authorized a search for Facebook … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Motion to suppress, Overbreadth, Probable cause | Comments Off on AK: Overbroad part of cell phone SW was severable from the valid part, and that properly came in at trial

CA3: There is no REP in the exterior of a package in transit

The initial detention and exterior inspection of the parcel sent to defendant did not implicate his Fourth Amendment rights because it occurred within the guaranteed delivery window. He had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the exterior of the parcel … Continue reading →

Posted in Mail and packages, Motion to suppress, Plain view, feel, smell, Standing | Comments Off on CA3: There is no REP in the exterior of a package in transit

NY Erie Co.: State prosecutors have no control over federal officers involved in state search for discovery purposes

State prosecutors aren’t necessarily obliged to give over information on federal officers present at a state search considering they have no control over them and their testimony may be hard fought via Touhy letters and they may have nothing additional … Continue reading →

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on NY Erie Co.: State prosecutors have no control over federal officers involved in state search for discovery purposes

CA7: Even if police potentially escalated the situation, ptf’s use of a gun justified deadly force

Even if the officers failed to properly announce themselves and even if the defendants’ actions exacerbated the possibility of a dangerous confrontation, Ancheta’s action, the use of his gun, was an intervening cause of the deadly force. The defendants escalated … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Consent, Excessive force, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on CA7: Even if police potentially escalated the situation, ptf’s use of a gun justified deadly force

NM: Trial courts can raise search issues on their own

A trial judge in New Mexico noticed that there were an unusual number of suspect warrantless searches going unchallenged by the defense. She set suppression hearings and several cases were nolle prossed. A few survived to be heard. On certification … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Motion to suppress, Probation / Parole search, Suppression hearings, Waiver | Comments Off on NM: Trial courts can raise search issues on their own

E.D.Pa.: Remedy for illegal search is to move to suppress, not to dismiss the case

A ground to suppress a search belongs in a motion to suppress, not to dismiss the indictment. United States v. Bailey, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198707 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2024). The search warrant didn’t provide the address of the … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Motion to suppress, Particularity, Probable cause | Comments Off on E.D.Pa.: Remedy for illegal search is to move to suppress, not to dismiss the case

C.D.Cal.: Motion to suppress admitting no facts is denied as speculative

Defendant’s motion to suppress admitting no knowledge of the facts is denied as speculative. United States v. Lipman, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158940 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 4, 2024). “Here, the totality of the circumstances indicates that Agent Oliver had a … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Issue preclusion, Motion to suppress, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on C.D.Cal.: Motion to suppress admitting no facts is denied as speculative

CA3: Reframing issues outside of the original argument below requires plain error review

Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3)’s good-cause standard applied to defendant’s specific suppression arguments that were raised for the first time on appeal rather than plain error review under Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). Because defendant did not demonstrate good cause … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on CA3: Reframing issues outside of the original argument below requires plain error review

S.D.Miss.: Drug SW permitted search of a safe even though not specified

This drug search warrant didn’t mention a safe, but that was a place where they could be found, so the search was proper. Also, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Manning, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109676 (S.D. Miss. … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Good faith exception, Motion to suppress, Probation / Parole search, Scope of search | Comments Off on S.D.Miss.: Drug SW permitted search of a safe even though not specified

D.Mont.: FBI 302s not discoverable to aid in PC and particularity challenge

Defendant cannot get discovery of FBI 302s just to see if the search warrant was based on whatever information that would disclose. United States v. Purkey, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104824 (D. Mont. June 11, 2024). After all, the four … Continue reading →

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Cell site location information, Motion to suppress, Particularity, Prison and jail searches, Warrant papers | Comments Off on D.Mont.: FBI 302s not discoverable to aid in PC and particularity challenge

W.D.Pa.: File your motion to suppress, and the court will hear a Brady then

What defendant knows about his search, since it happened to him, is enough to file a motion to suppress. His discovery request beyond what he already knows about the search should wait for him to file a motion to suppress. … Continue reading →

Posted in Motion to suppress | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: File your motion to suppress, and the court will hear a Brady then

S.D.Fla.: Emergency motion to quash SW denied; def can still file a motion to suppress

The target of a search filed an emergency motion to quash a search warrant for DNA to compare it to a firearm but without a showing there was DNA on the gun. The motion is denied, but the target can … Continue reading →

Posted in DNA, Motion to suppress, Plain view, feel, smell, Search incident | Comments Off on S.D.Fla.: Emergency motion to quash SW denied; def can still file a motion to suppress

D.Minn.: Regular CI had “extensive knowledge of street gangs, firearms, and narcotics distribution”; there was PC

The CI had “extensive knowledge of street gangs, firearms, and narcotics distribution,” and he’d been providing information for three months. The officers corroborated what they could. What little omissions there were in the affidavit weren’t material to the finding of … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Informant hearsay, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on D.Minn.: Regular CI had “extensive knowledge of street gangs, firearms, and narcotics distribution”; there was PC

UT: Emergency aid exception permitted entry for apparent homicide victim who was missing

The emergency aid exception permitted entry into this murder scene. The victim was the grandmother of a child who punctually picked the child up every day at school. When she didn’t show for hours, the school notified police. They went … Continue reading →

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Emergency / exigency, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on UT: Emergency aid exception permitted entry for apparent homicide victim who was missing

AR: HBO film crew ride-along on drug raid doesn’t lead to suppression

An HBO film crew was doing a ride-along with the DEA and local DTF officers for the making of “Meth Storm.” Defendant raises via post-conviction that the ride-along film crew violated the Fourth Amendment and the state constitution. The court … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell site location information, Good faith exception, Ineffective assistance, Motion to suppress, Overbreadth, Warrant execution | Comments Off on AR: HBO film crew ride-along on drug raid doesn’t lead to suppression

DE: Mandamus can’t be used as interlocutory appeal of denial of motion to suppress

A petition for writ of mandamus can’t be used as an interlocutory appeal of denial of a motion to suppress. [Mandamus isn’t anywhere near a possible remedy.] In re Taylor for A Writ of Mandamus, 2023 Del. LEXIS 400 (Dec. … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Burden of pleading, Ineffective assistance, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on DE: Mandamus can’t be used as interlocutory appeal of denial of motion to suppress

D.Mass.: Plea agreement foreclosed return of property

Defendant’s plea agreement foreclosed his Rule 41(g) motion for return of property. United States v. Spencer, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206257 (D. Mass. Nov. 17, 2023). Defendant’s motion to reconsider denial of his motion to suppress the timeliness of his … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Issue preclusion, Motion to suppress, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Voluntariness | Comments Off on D.Mass.: Plea agreement foreclosed return of property

PA: Fleeing a traffic stop and wrecking car and then running off was abandonment of the car

Defendant fled in his car from a traffic stop and wrecked a few blocks away. He abandoned the car at the scene by running off. Commonwealth v. Hall, 2023 PA Super 224, 2023 Pa. Super. LEXIS 513 (Nov. 3, 2023). … Continue reading →

Posted in Abandonment, Motion to suppress, Reasonable suspicion, Waiver | Comments Off on PA: Fleeing a traffic stop and wrecking car and then running off was abandonment of the car

NY3: Motion to suppress is an adequate remedy at law, not a writ of prohibition

Defendant sought prohibition to prevent his prosecution because of an illegal search. He has an adequate remedy in a motion to suppress. Denied. Matter of Rodriguez v. Hobbs, 2023 NY Slip Op 05433,2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5399 (3d Dept. … Continue reading →

Posted in Motion to suppress, Probable cause, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on NY3: Motion to suppress is an adequate remedy at law, not a writ of prohibition

D.Minn.: Tracking warrant that provided for tracking but not installation was saved by GFE

The tracking warrant provided for tracking of the car, but did not mention installing the tracker. The court finds the good faith exception applies. United States v. Gonzalez, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142057 (D.Minn. Aug. 15, 2023). There was probable … Continue reading →

Posted in Good faith exception, Ineffective assistance, Motion to suppress, Probable cause, Tracking warrant | Comments Off on D.Minn.: Tracking warrant that provided for tracking but not installation was saved by GFE