Category Archives: Motion to suppress

C.D.Cal.: A mismatched license plate to the vehicle is more indicative of crime than other traffic offenses

A mismatched license plate to the vehicle is more indicative of crime than other traffic offenses. It is a reasonable suspicion warranting a patdown. “Such a risk was only heightened here because the ‘traffic violation’ at issue—using forged or stolen … Continue reading →

Posted in Motion to suppress, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on C.D.Cal.: A mismatched license plate to the vehicle is more indicative of crime than other traffic offenses

OH3: Trial court decided issue defense didn’t raise, and state prejudiced

The trial court erred in sua sponte raising a length of detention issue that the state did not get to respond to. State v. Miller, 2015-Ohio-3529, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 3443 (3d Dist. August 31, 2015):

Posted in Burden of proof, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on OH3: Trial court decided issue defense didn’t raise, and state prejudiced

OH9: A challenge to evidence under the rules of evidence is brought by a motion in limine, not a motion to suppress

A challenge to evidence under the rules of evidence is brought by a motion in limine, not a motion to suppress. That’s for constitutional grounds. State v. Johnson, 2015-Ohio-3449, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 3327 (9th Dist. August 26, 2015). One … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on OH9: A challenge to evidence under the rules of evidence is brought by a motion in limine, not a motion to suppress

MD: Oral motion to suppress cell phone was waived: neither timely nor specific

Defendant’s oral motion to suppress the contents of his cell phone the morning of trial was neither timely nor specific as to what was to be suppressed, so it’s treated as waived. Sinclair v. State, 2015 Md. LEXIS 496 (July … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on MD: Oral motion to suppress cell phone was waived: neither timely nor specific

NY1: Facebook can’t challenge SWs for customer accounts pre-enforcement

There is no pre-enforcement right to challenge search warrants. There are plenty of post-enforcement proceedings available. In re 381 Search Warrants Directed to Facebook, Inc. v New York County Dist. Attorney’s Off., 2015 NY Slip Op 06201, 2015 N.Y. App. … Continue reading →

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on NY1: Facebook can’t challenge SWs for customer accounts pre-enforcement

OH2: A general motion to suppress did not put state on notice to issue it wasn’t prepared to litigate; waiver found

Defendant’s motion to suppress did not put the state on notice that his primary issue was the qualifications of the drug dog and handler, so the issue was not preserved for appeal. State v. Matthews, 2015-Ohio-1750, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS … Continue reading →

Posted in Good faith exception, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on OH2: A general motion to suppress did not put state on notice to issue it wasn’t prepared to litigate; waiver found

CA5: Suppression hearing not required when def doesn’t make a showing for one

On the face of the papers, the motion to suppress and the government’s response, defendant doesn’t show an issue for an evidentiary hearing. Denial of a suppression hearing is governed by the abuse of discretion standard, and there was no … Continue reading →

Posted in Motion to suppress | Comments Off on CA5: Suppression hearing not required when def doesn’t make a showing for one

D.Minn.: Generic motion to suppress without factual or legal argument could be denied on that basis alone

“Defendant’s written motion to suppress the results of the search and seizure is brief, generic, and devoid of factual or legal argument specifically addressing the search warrant at issue now before the Court. Because Defendant has offered no sufficiently specific … Continue reading →

Posted in DNA, Motion to suppress, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.Minn.: Generic motion to suppress without factual or legal argument could be denied on that basis alone

LA4: No procedure to reopen a motion to suppress after the verdict

No motion to suppress had been filed, so the appellate court doesn’t consider it. There’s also no procedure to reopen a motion to suppress after the verdict. State v. Marx, 2015 La. App. LEXIS 435 (La.App. 4 Cir. March 4, … Continue reading →

Posted in Motion to suppress, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on LA4: No procedure to reopen a motion to suppress after the verdict

CA6: Motion to suppress body-cam video wasn’t timely or specific; evidentiary prejudice only real issue

Body-cam video admitted, and the motion to suppress it wasn’t timely, even if it would have been granted as showing a potential Miranda violation. The video showed what officers would testify to; to limit it would require it be overly … Continue reading →

Posted in Motion to suppress, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on CA6: Motion to suppress body-cam video wasn’t timely or specific; evidentiary prejudice only real issue

EFF.org: The Many Problems with the DEA’s Bulk Phone Records Collection Program

EFF.org: The Many Problems with the DEA’s Bulk Phone Records Collection Program by Hanni Farkhoury: Think mass surveillance is just the wheelhouse of agencies like the NSA? Think again. One of the biggest concerns to come from the revelations about … Continue reading →

Posted in Motion to suppress | Comments Off on EFF.org: The Many Problems with the DEA’s Bulk Phone Records Collection Program

KY: Suppression and dismissal during bench trial is double jeopardy; error or not

In a bench trial, the defendant moved to suppress during the trial, and it was granted. Based on that, the state called no witnesses, and the trial court dismissed the case. Correct or not, the defendant can’t be retried because … Continue reading →

Posted in Motion to suppress, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on KY: Suppression and dismissal during bench trial is double jeopardy; error or not

D.Minn.: No nexus shown in house only incidentally connected to defendant

There was no nexus shown at a house defendant merely visited between his house and a drug deal he left to complete 20 blocks away, stopping at the subject house in between. “It stretches credulity to conclude that Gilliam’s single … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Motion to suppress, Nexus | Comments Off on D.Minn.: No nexus shown in house only incidentally connected to defendant

M.D.Ala.: The difference between a motion in limine and a motion to suppress

The difference between a motion in limine and a motion to suppress is discussed in United States v. Perez-Gomez, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165439 (M.D. Ala. November 26, 2014): n.2. This is as opposed to a motion to suppress. Black’s … Continue reading →

Posted in Motion to suppress | Comments Off on M.D.Ala.: The difference between a motion in limine and a motion to suppress

VA: Lack of particularity in motion to suppress was waiver under statute

Defendant’s failure to refer to a Miranda violation as a product of an illegal arrest in the motion to suppress was a waiver. It did come up at the hearing, but it’s still considered waived. [See Treatise § 60.31] Gregory … Continue reading →

Posted in Motion to suppress | Comments Off on VA: Lack of particularity in motion to suppress was waiver under statute

Nebraska holds for first time that rules of evidence don’t apply to suppression hearings

“Because our interpretation of the rules of evidence is meant to be the same as the federal rules, we conclude that under § 27-104 [Rule 104], the rules of evidence do not apply at hearings to determine preliminary questions of … Continue reading →

Posted in Motion to suppress | Comments Off on Nebraska holds for first time that rules of evidence don’t apply to suppression hearings

AR: Locked safe in car could be searched without warrant under automobile exception

Where the automobile exception applies to a car, the state does not need a search warrant to search a locked safe found in it. State v. Crane, 2014 Ark. 443, 2014 Ark. LEXIS 586 (October 30, 2014). The government did … Continue reading →

Posted in Automobile exception, Informant hearsay, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on AR: Locked safe in car could be searched without warrant under automobile exception

PA: Search of an aspirin bottle on entering a courthouse was reasonable; cocaine found

Defendant entered a county courthouse and emptied his pockets for the metal detector. He left an aspirin bottle in the tray which the officer shook. He concluded it contained something other than aspirin. Defendant wasn’t detained but the bottle was. … Continue reading →

Posted in Motion to suppress, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on PA: Search of an aspirin bottle on entering a courthouse was reasonable; cocaine found

DC: Withheld information about a viable search issue was a Brady violation

Withheld information about a search issue that would likely have been successful is Brady information. Here, the issue developed during trial. Biles v. United States, 2014 D.C. App. LEXIS 439 (October 23, 2014): Turning to the merits, the government, again, … Continue reading →

Posted in Motion to suppress | Comments Off on DC: Withheld information about a viable search issue was a Brady violation

DE: Def didn’t controvert state’s affidavits responding to motion to suppress; denied

The state’s affidavits filed in response to the motion to suppress say the search was by consent, but the defense didn’t controvert. Without there being a factual dispute, no hearing is required on the motion to suppress, and it’s a … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, GPS / Tracking Data, Ineffective assistance, Motion to suppress, Probable cause | Comments Off on DE: Def didn’t controvert state’s affidavits responding to motion to suppress; denied