Category Archives: Motion to suppress

S.D.Ohio: Federal suit to force state court to apply exclusionary rule barred by Younger and Rooker/Feldman

Plaintiff’s suit in federal court to cause state court to apply the exclusionary rule in state court is barred by Younger and Rooker/Feldman. Chappel v. Adams Cnty. Child.’s Servs., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112877 (S.D. Ohio May 19, 2023). Defendant’s … Continue reading

Posted in Informant hearsay, Issue preclusion, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on S.D.Ohio: Federal suit to force state court to apply exclusionary rule barred by Younger and Rooker/Feldman

CA7: The remedy for an overbroad SW is a motion to suppress, not a motion to dismiss

An alleged overbroad email search warrant is pursued by a motion to suppress, not a motion to dismiss. “The remedy for such Fourth Amendment violations in a criminal proceeding is suppression of the evidence, not dismissal of the indictment or … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Exclusionary rule, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on CA7: The remedy for an overbroad SW is a motion to suppress, not a motion to dismiss

D.Nev.: Affidavits for SWs don’t have to prove the underlying crimes

There was probable cause for the four search warrants here. “Much of Martinez’s arguments are based on the premise that the warrants are unsupported by probable cause because the affidavits did not prove the elements of the target crimes.” They … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress, Private search | Comments Off on D.Nev.: Affidavits for SWs don’t have to prove the underlying crimes

M.D.Ga.: No right to challenge SW before execution

It isn’t apparent that there’s a right to challenge a search warrant before it is executed. (Rule 17 covers motions to quash subpoenas.) Even if there was, defendant doesn’t carry his burden. United States v. Crumpton, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS … Continue reading

Posted in Body searches, Franks doctrine, Motion to suppress, Qualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on M.D.Ga.: No right to challenge SW before execution

CA6: Younger requires the federal case over an arrest or search be stayed, not dismissed

The district court improperly dismissed plaintiff’s case under Younger because of ongoing state proceedings it implicated. It should have stayed it instead. Neal El v. Showman, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 12604 (6th Cir. May 22, 2023). The Fourth Amendment does … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Informant hearsay, Issue preclusion, Motion to suppress, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on CA6: Younger requires the federal case over an arrest or search be stayed, not dismissed

W.D.Pa.: Lack of a proper chain of custody is not a ground for a motion to suppress

Alleged lack of a proper chain of custody is not a ground for a motion to suppress. United States v. Pollard, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88536 (W.D. Pa. May 19, 2023). Defendant’s Fourth Amendment issues on appeal are not the … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Consent, Motion to suppress, Waiver | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: Lack of a proper chain of custody is not a ground for a motion to suppress

OH3: Def’s motion to determine legality of arrest never sought to suppress anything and wasn’t appealable

Defendant’s motion to determine the legality of his arrest was not even called a motion to suppress. It was not even appealable as it was framed. “[T]he motion filed by Sanchez on October 28, 2020, was not captioned a ‘motion … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Motion to suppress, Probation / Parole search, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on OH3: Def’s motion to determine legality of arrest never sought to suppress anything and wasn’t appealable

S.D.Ill.: When moving to suppress “data” one has to be specific

Defendant’s motion to suppress “data” and “associated data” fails because of his failure to show what and where it was or could be. (It kind of becomes a general motion to suppress.) United States v. Smith, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on S.D.Ill.: When moving to suppress “data” one has to be specific

E.D.N.Y.: Without knowing what to suppress, motion to suppress is premature

Defendant’s motion to suppress the search of Device A is premature since the product of the search isn’t yet known. Also, his motion to suppress the search of Device B is denied for lack of standing. It isn’t his. United … Continue reading

Posted in Custody, Motion to suppress, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on E.D.N.Y.: Without knowing what to suppress, motion to suppress is premature

techdirt: Successful Evidence Suppression Motion Shows Cops Think Pretty Much Everything Is ‘Suspicious’

techdirt: Successful Evidence Suppression Motion Shows Cops Think Pretty Much Everything Is ‘Suspicious’ by Tim Cushing, about reasonable suspicion in traffic stops. Everything and anything is reasonable suspicion, so if everything is, everyone can be stopped and detained.

Posted in Motion to suppress, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on techdirt: Successful Evidence Suppression Motion Shows Cops Think Pretty Much Everything Is ‘Suspicious’

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