Category Archives: Motion to suppress

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

D.P.R.: Passing reference to a 4A violation in motion to suppress doesn’t preserve it

Passing reference to a Fourth Amendment violation isn’t enough to preserve the issue. United States v. Polaco-Hance, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132937 (D.P.R. July 16, 2021). There was probable cause for the search of defendant’s car under the warrant. A … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Motion to suppress, Plain view, feel, smell, Waiver | Comments Off on D.P.R.: Passing reference to a 4A violation in motion to suppress doesn’t preserve it

LA5: Chain of custody issue after search isn’t a motion to suppress issue

A chain of custody dispute from a search isn’t proper in a motion to suppress. That’s a trial issue. State v. Mackey, 2021 La. App. LEXIS 1068 (La. App. 5 Cir. July 12, 2021). “Plaintiff Sally Gaetjens sued various local … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Emergency / exigency, Immigration arrests, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on LA5: Chain of custody issue after search isn’t a motion to suppress issue

ND: Reasonableness under Heien supported even though erroneous conclusion traffic offense occurred

Whether failure to signal while exiting a roundabout is a traffic offense is a valid reason for a stop or not, it was reasonable for the officer to conclude it was, and that justifies the stop under Heien. City of … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress, Probable cause, Reasonableness, Staleness | Comments Off on ND: Reasonableness under Heien supported even though erroneous conclusion traffic offense occurred

N.D.Ohio: 5 yo child wandering in apt parking lot at 2:30 am was exigency when door was open to apt

A five year old boy found wandering at 2:30 am in an apartment building parking lot was exigency for the police to further open defendant’s partially open door when the apartment was found. United States v. Shorter, 2021 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Motion to suppress, Private search, Standards of review | Comments Off on N.D.Ohio: 5 yo child wandering in apt parking lot at 2:30 am was exigency when door was open to apt

PA: Stop for no LPN permitted running names of occupants

Not having a license plate justified defendant’s stop and then running names. Commonwealth v. Malloy, 2021 PA Super 90, 2021 Pa. Super. LEXIS 278 (May 7, 2021). The backup light being on while driving justifies a stop. People v. Ambrose, … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress, Reasonable suspicion, Scope of search | Comments Off on PA: Stop for no LPN permitted running names of occupants

D.Idaho: Def’s available suppression remedy supplants Rule 41(g) motion seeking to quash SW

Defendant filed a Rule 41(g) motion for return of property that also sought to quash a search warrant. He has the remedy in his criminal case. Purbeck v. Wilkinson, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76412 (D. Idaho Apr. 21, 2021). The … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Motion to suppress, Particularity, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on D.Idaho: Def’s available suppression remedy supplants Rule 41(g) motion seeking to quash SW

W.D.Mo.: Govt moots motion to suppress by deciding not to use challenged evidence

When the defendant files a motion to suppress and the government elects not to use the evidence at trial, the motion becomes moot. United States v. Bowers, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45445 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 11, 2021). Defendant’s 2255 for … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on W.D.Mo.: Govt moots motion to suppress by deciding not to use challenged evidence

IA: Reasonable inference owner of car was driving where owner had a suspended DL

It was a reasonable inference that the owner of a vehicle with a suspended license was driving when the vehicle was seen because the officer’s experience [and commonsense by now] shows that persons with suspended licenses continue to drive. That … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress, Prison and jail searches, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on IA: Reasonable inference owner of car was driving where owner had a suspended DL

KY: Deputy in one county could go to another to investigate; no motion to suppress lies for statutory violation, if there even was one

A motion to suppress for a statutory violation doesn’t work in Kentucky absent a constitutional violation to found it on. Here, a deputy from one county crossed into another county to investigate. The statute defendant relies on deals with arrest, … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Exclusionary rule, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on KY: Deputy in one county could go to another to investigate; no motion to suppress lies for statutory violation, if there even was one

D.Kan.: Pro se motion to suppress of represented def doesn’t attach affidavits, say why 4A or statute violated, or cite any law; denied for having counsel

Defendant is represented by counsel, then files a motion to suppress. “Defendant’s pro se motion reflects a misunderstanding of court proceedings. The Defendant fails to specify which search warrant he objects to, fails to provide a copy, or copies, of … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress, Pretext, Standards of review | Comments Off on D.Kan.: Pro se motion to suppress of represented def doesn’t attach affidavits, say why 4A or statute violated, or cite any law; denied for having counsel