Category Archives: Motion to suppress

NE: Def’s purse could be searched under automobile exception even though it had already been removed from car

Defendant’s purse was validly searched under the automobile exception after the backup officer smelled marijuana coming from the car. It didn’t matter that it wasn’t in the car at the time of the search. State v. Lang, 305 Neb. 726 … Continue reading →

Posted in Automobile exception, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on NE: Def’s purse could be searched under automobile exception even though it had already been removed from car

Two on waiver for untimeliness

Pro se defendant making a motion to suppress during trial was waiver. He talked about it with his former attorney and waited until the government offered it into evidence. United States v. Young, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 10820 (7th Cir. … Continue reading →

Posted in Motion to suppress | Comments Off on Two on waiver for untimeliness

CA11: Failure to join in the codef’s motion to suppress is waiver

Failure to join in the codefendant’s motion to suppress is waiver. United States v. Russa, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 9288 (11th Cir. Mar. 25, 2020). In a 2254 COA: “Assuming that counsel was deficient in failing to raise the plain-view … Continue reading →

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on CA11: Failure to join in the codef’s motion to suppress is waiver

D.Alaska: No Franks duty to tell issuing magistrate of failed challenges to same CP search software elsewhere

The FBI agent applying for the search warrant had no Franks duty to tell the issuing magistrate that Torrential Downpour, the software they were using, had been challenged elsewhere where the challenges had failed. United States v. Schwier, 2020 U.S. … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on D.Alaska: No Franks duty to tell issuing magistrate of failed challenges to same CP search software elsewhere

D.Nev.: No motions through six continuances and past motions deadline all untimely

After six continuances in 18 months or so, the defendants’ motion to suppress and other motions filed on the eve of trial are denied as untimely. United States v. Phillips, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42782 (D. Nev. Mar. 11, 2020). … Continue reading →

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on D.Nev.: No motions through six continuances and past motions deadline all untimely

OH: Lack of RS for stop or knowledge of an arrest warrant denies state reliance on Strieff for outstanding warrant

Defendant was sitting in a car near a drug house doing nothing wrong. Police accosted him under the pretext there might be a warrant for him. It turned out there was. Even applying Strieff, the court concludes that Strieff was … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Motion to suppress, Standing | Comments Off on OH: Lack of RS for stop or knowledge of an arrest warrant denies state reliance on Strieff for outstanding warrant

E.D.Mich.: No ex ante opportunity for email account holder to challenge SW

Targets of an email search warrant lack standing to challenge the search warrant ex ante, before execution. They must do so after. In the Matter of the Search of Records, Information, and Data Associated with 14 Email Addresses Controlled by … Continue reading →

Posted in E-mail, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: No ex ante opportunity for email account holder to challenge SW

Cal.: Mid-trial objection to question based on lack of PC for search was untimely objection to the search

A mid-trial objection to evidence on the ground there was no probable cause for the police action in the search was untimely. It can only be brought during trial if the facts weren’t known until then, and that’s not what … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Motion to suppress, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on Cal.: Mid-trial objection to question based on lack of PC for search was untimely objection to the search

D.Nev.: Def’s motion to join codef’s motion to suppress requires showing of REP in joinder motion

Defendant’s motion to join a codefendant’s motion to suppress requires a showing of his reasonable expectation of privacy in the joinder motion. United States v. Palafox, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3698 (D. Nev. Jan. 7, 2020). “[T]he affidavit includes facts … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Motion to suppress, Probable cause | Comments Off on D.Nev.: Def’s motion to join codef’s motion to suppress requires showing of REP in joinder motion

GA: Lack of a particularized motion to suppress didn’t preserve 4A claim for appeal

Defendant did not file a particularized motion to suppress, so he couldn’t raise the issue on appeal. State v. Walker, 2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 266 (May 17, 2019). Defendant’s statement during the course of the search of his house was … Continue reading →

Posted in Motion to suppress | Comments Off on GA: Lack of a particularized motion to suppress didn’t preserve 4A claim for appeal

CA2: Failure to make an offer of proof in motion to suppress means denial of the motion

“For starters, Ferrer was not entitled to a hearing on his motion to suppress. The motion, filed by counsel, was unaccompanied by any affidavit to support the charge that Ferrer was subjected to ‘an unlawful police-initiated interrogation.’ Gov’t App’x 2. … Continue reading →

Posted in Motion to suppress | Comments Off on CA2: Failure to make an offer of proof in motion to suppress means denial of the motion

W.D.Wash.: 14 month delay in searching seized cell phone was reasonable because it wouldn’t have been returned anyway

A 14 month delay between seizure and search of defendant’s cell phone was not unreasonable because the phone would not have been returned to defendant in any event. Plus, he was in jail and couldn’t possess it. United States v. … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Informant hearsay, Motion to suppress, Reasonableness | Comments Off on W.D.Wash.: 14 month delay in searching seized cell phone was reasonable because it wouldn’t have been returned anyway

DE: Untimely motion to suppress properly denied; def would lose on the merits anyway

Failure to file a motion to suppress before trial constituted a waiver of claims regarding the admissibility of items found at defendant’s garage. There was no plain error in the application of the inevitable discovery rule because it was clear … Continue reading →

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on DE: Untimely motion to suppress properly denied; def would lose on the merits anyway

D.Ariz.: Raising a search issue 5 months after conviction is a little too late

Defendant’s suppression argument five months after conviction is too late. Besides, it doesn’t allege anything of substance anyway. United States v. Alahmedalabdaloklah, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189719 (D. Ariz. Nov. 6, 2018).* Defendant’s search claim is denied without even telling … Continue reading →

Posted in Motion to suppress, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on D.Ariz.: Raising a search issue 5 months after conviction is a little too late

D.Minn.: Res judicata doesn’t bar relitigating motion to suppress within same proceeding

A ruling on a motion to suppress during the proceedings is subject to change. It is not governed by res judicata because it isn’t final. United States v. Baez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184017 (D. Minn. Aug. 30, 2018), adopted, … Continue reading →

Posted in Hot pursuit, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on D.Minn.: Res judicata doesn’t bar relitigating motion to suppress within same proceeding

DE: Motion deadlines are there for a reason; the defense doesn’t show “exceptional circumstances” to overcome the deadline

There are motion deadlines for a reason. Former defense counsel reviewed the file and didn’t see a basis for a motion to suppress. Another defense lawyer came in and did. The excuse for getting around the deadline is late disclosure … Continue reading →

Posted in Motion to suppress | Comments Off on DE: Motion deadlines are there for a reason; the defense doesn’t show “exceptional circumstances” to overcome the deadline

WV: Def can’t show abuse of discretion for trial court to not consider oral motion to suppress instead of a written one

Defendant can’t show an abuse of discretion from the trial judge’s declining to consider an oral motion to suppress. The rule says it’s in the discretion of the trial court. State v. Gaiser, 2018 W. Va. LEXIS 370 (May 14, … Continue reading →

Posted in Motion to suppress | Comments Off on WV: Def can’t show abuse of discretion for trial court to not consider oral motion to suppress instead of a written one

NY4: Oral motion to suppress denied; has to be written

An oral motion to suppress fails. It was required to be in writing for the record. People v. Hinojoso-Soto, 2018 NY Slip Op 03264, 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3195 (4th Dept. May 4, 2018). Driving a car at a … Continue reading →

Posted in Motion to suppress, Warrant execution | Comments Off on NY4: Oral motion to suppress denied; has to be written

NE: A motion in limine is not a substitute for a motion to suppress

“A suppression hearing is preparatory, because it relates to auxiliary issues not immediately relevant to the question of guilt and is held in anticipation of certain evidence being introduced at a forthcoming trial.” A motion in limine is not a … Continue reading →

Posted in Motion to suppress | Comments Off on NE: A motion in limine is not a substitute for a motion to suppress

CA1: Suppression motion was untimely without a showing of good cause, and it would not be determined on appeal

“Sweeney neither challenged the finding of untimeliness before the district court, nor does he now argue that his delay in filing the motion to suppress was excused by good cause. As such, because of his waiver, we need not address … Continue reading →

Posted in Motion to suppress, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on CA1: Suppression motion was untimely without a showing of good cause, and it would not be determined on appeal