Category Archives: Burden of proof

CA10: A Franks violation can’t be based on information that had not been discovered yet

The affidavit showed probable cause. And, “Detective Ames did not knowingly or recklessly omit exculpatory information from the affidavit because she was not aware of any such information when she prepared the affidavit.” Weidner v. McHale, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on CA10: A Franks violation can’t be based on information that had not been discovered yet

KS: In responding to SW, out-of-state social media company’s authentication statement substantially complied with state law

In responding to a search warrant request, the social media company provided Rule 901 authentication for that state “under penalty of perjury,” but under the law of the United States not the State of Kansas. It was under penalty of … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Pretext, Warrant execution, Warrant papers | Comments Off on KS: In responding to SW, out-of-state social media company’s authentication statement substantially complied with state law

CA6: Facebook picture of stolen lamp gave nexus for SW

An attempt to sell an antique lamp on Facebook provided sufficient nexus to defendant’s house for a search warrant. United States v. Truett, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4764 (6th Cir. Feb. 27, 2025).* The district court saw the video of … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Nexus, Standards of review | Comments Off on CA6: Facebook picture of stolen lamp gave nexus for SW

D.N.H.: Affidavit for SW showed def’s standing

“Examining the totality of the circumstances, the evidence shows that the officers reasonably believed that Guerrero-Nuñez lived in Apartment 204 and would be present when they entered the apartment. As such, their entry into the apartment did not violate Guerrero-Nuñez’s … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Burden of proof, Standing | Comments Off on D.N.H.: Affidavit for SW showed def’s standing

CA2: Alleged inconsistencies in dog handler’s testimony didn’t necessarily make him unbelievable

“Any inconsistent testimony Fisher gave as to the dog’s ‘alerts’ and ‘indications’ arose out of a confusion of vocabulary rather than lack of credibility, as made evident by the district court’s request that Fisher clarify and not conflate the terms. … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Burden of proof, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA2: Alleged inconsistencies in dog handler’s testimony didn’t necessarily make him unbelievable

PA: State failed in its burden of proof on inventory policy

The state failed to put on proof of the impoundment and inventory policy, so the trial court erred in finding it was reasonable. Commonwealth v. Brinson, 2024 PA Super 293, 2024 Pa. Super. LEXIS 536 (Dec. 9, 2024). Defendant’s car … Continue reading

Posted in Abandonment, Burden of proof, Exclusionary rule, Inventory, Standing | Comments Off on PA: State failed in its burden of proof on inventory policy

OR: Backpack’s inventory on admission to treatment facility was reasonable

Police could inventory defendant’s backpack when he was picked up and transported to a treatment facility. Inventory was provided for by local ordinance. The same policies apply to inventory even if defendant isn’t in jail. State v. Wilcox, 335 Or … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Burden of proof, Curtilage, Inventory, Knock and talk, Probable cause | Comments Off on OR: Backpack’s inventory on admission to treatment facility was reasonable

LA5: SW support was thin, but def didn’t carry burden to overcome presumption of validity

Here the affidavit had a gratuitous statement that there were federal wiretaps, but they didn’t involve defendant. Still, it made it into the affidavit for warrant along with identification information. There were also observations of him going into suspect premises. … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Probable cause, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on LA5: SW support was thin, but def didn’t carry burden to overcome presumption of validity

N.D.Cal.: Checking DMV and criminal history during a traffic stop not unreasonable

Checking DMV and criminal history during a traffic stop is not unreasonable. United States v. Daniels, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190101 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2024). Defendant “argues that the bodycam evidence refutes Trooper Myer’s testimony that the truck and … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Informant hearsay, Reasonableness | Comments Off on N.D.Cal.: Checking DMV and criminal history during a traffic stop not unreasonable

N.D.Ga.: Opening car door during stop requires RS

Opening a car door during a traffic stop requires reasonable suspicion and is governed by Terry. On the totality, officers had it based on a detailed BOLO. United States v. Crumbley, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189567 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 18, … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Burden of proof, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: Opening car door during stop requires RS

FL1: Def’s refusal to admit computer searched was his denies him standing

At the suppression hearing, defendant refused to claim ownership of the computer the subject of the motion to suppress. Therefore, he has no standing. Alternatively, the good faith exception saves the search even if there was no probable cause. Bates … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Computer and cloud searches, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on FL1: Def’s refusal to admit computer searched was his denies him standing

N.D.Ga.: Having cell phone at scene of crime justifies its seizure under plain view

There was justification for the plain view seizure of defendant’s cell phone when it came to the scene of the crime with him. United States v. Dulaney, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151204 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 23, 2024).* “Saldana-Alaniz fails to … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Cell phones, Consent, Informant hearsay, Search incident | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: Having cell phone at scene of crime justifies its seizure under plain view

CA11: Week’s delay in getting SW for cell phone was reasonable; def in custody and didn’t ask for it back.

The warrant for defendant’s cell phone wasn’t issued for a week, but the delay was reasonable. He was in jail with a diminished privacy interest, and he didn’t ask for it back. United States v. Watson, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Cell phones, Reasonable suspicion, Reasonableness, State constitution, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA11: Week’s delay in getting SW for cell phone was reasonable; def in custody and didn’t ask for it back.

S.D.Ga.: State knock-and-announce statute, if it applies at all, doesn’t confer standing on an alleged guest

Plaintiff said she was an overnight guest at the house searched and thus had standing, except that was never proved. “None of those facts are present here, as there is no record evidence showing that James had personal belongings in … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Exclusionary rule, Knock and announce, Reasonable suspicion, Standing | Comments Off on S.D.Ga.: State knock-and-announce statute, if it applies at all, doesn’t confer standing on an alleged guest

N.D.Ohio: When a stop is based on a law enforcement database, does reliability have to be shown? Here there was more

When a stop is based on a computerized law enforcement database, whether it has to be corroborated (see Gonzalez v. United States Immigration. & Customs Enf’t, 975 F.3d 788, 819 (9th Cir. 2020)) isn’t decided here because here there was … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Burden of proof, Prison and jail searches, Reasonable suspicion, Waiver | Comments Off on N.D.Ohio: When a stop is based on a law enforcement database, does reliability have to be shown? Here there was more

OH1: Inadvertence for plain view is a fact question

The inadvertence requirement of plain view here was a fact question. Police showed up on a wellness check about an allegedly suicidal person. Here it was a syringe cap that led to finding the syringe. State v. Hyatt, 2024-Ohio-2422 (1st … Continue reading

Posted in Attenuation, Burden of proof, Dog sniff, Standards of review | Comments Off on OH1: Inadvertence for plain view is a fact question

Two on standing in a rental car

“We find that Guice was, like the driver in Byrd, a driver in lawful possession or control of a rental car and the mere fact that she had retained the vehicle beyond the rental return date does not defeat her … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Standing | Comments Off on Two on standing in a rental car

E.D.Ky.: When court can’t tell the dog alerted, motion to suppress granted

The court reviewing the dashcam video repeatedly cannot tell that the dog alerts at all. Motion to suppress granted. United States v. Edmonds, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74570 (E.D. Ky. Apr. 24, 2024). Update: techdirt: Court To Cops: If We … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Dog sniff, Good faith exception | Comments Off on E.D.Ky.: When court can’t tell the dog alerted, motion to suppress granted

E.D.Mich.: Collateral estoppel bars religitating search in a § 1983 case where motion to suppress lost in criminal case

Collateral estoppel bars relitigating a search in a § 1983 case found lawful in an underlying criminal case. Boseman v. Flint Police Dep’t, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46699 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 15, 2024). “As discussed, Brown acquired the information giving … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Collateral estoppel bars religitating search in a § 1983 case where motion to suppress lost in criminal case

OH1: Trial court erred in not suppressing when officer couldn’t remember the basis of stop

Defendant satisfied his burden of pleading by stating the stop was without justification. At the hearing on the motion to suppress this OVI case, the officer couldn’t remember why defendant was stopped. The trial court erred in not suppressing. State … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Plain view, feel, smell, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on OH1: Trial court erred in not suppressing when officer couldn’t remember the basis of stop