Category Archives: Burden of proof

FL6: Trial court erred by de novo review of SW application

The trial court conducted a de novo review of the search warrant application, not seeing whether there was a substantial basis for finding probable cause. This was error. State v. Freeman, 2024 Fla. App. LEXIS 115 (Fla. 6th DCA Jan. … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on FL6: Trial court erred by de novo review of SW application

WY: Def’s girlfriend showed apparent authority to enter their apartment after domestic dispute; Illinois v. Rodriguez redux

Officer’s reasonably relied on defendant’s girlfriend’s apparent authority to enter his apartment. She called 911 about what she described as a domestic assault where he struck her face. When police arrived, she was outside the apartment sitting on the stairs. … Continue reading

Posted in Apparent authority, Burden of proof, Informant hearsay, Inventory | Comments Off on WY: Def’s girlfriend showed apparent authority to enter their apartment after domestic dispute; Illinois v. Rodriguez redux

OH5: Put the affidavit for SW in the record at the suppression hearing

The affidavit for search warrant isn’t in the record on appeal, so the court presumes the regularity of proceedings in the trial court. The record that was made shows that there was probable cause. State v. Hill, 2023-Ohio-4381, 2023 Ohio … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Franks doctrine, Probable cause, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on OH5: Put the affidavit for SW in the record at the suppression hearing

W.D.Mo.: SW found to have been served after 6 am, but even if not, no prejudice

The court’s credibility determination is that the warrant here was executed after 6:00 a.m., not before. Even if they arrived early, they didn’t enter until 6:00 a.m. “Assuming, arguendo, the officers searched Defendant’s home before 6:00 a.m., the facts demonstrate … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Nighttime search, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on W.D.Mo.: SW found to have been served after 6 am, but even if not, no prejudice

NM: State had to support search incident to arrest of def’s purse at suppression hearing and didn’t

Defendant’s purse over the shoulder was not part of her person. It was removed from her and later searched incident to arrest. The state failed to support the search incident doctrine at the suppression hearing of where the purse was … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Consent, Reasonable suspicion, Search incident | Comments Off on NM: State had to support search incident to arrest of def’s purse at suppression hearing and didn’t

CA9: Franks challenge has to include showing lack of PC

On a Franks challenge, “Defendant failed to establish that, if additional information about the informant’s credibility had been included, the affidavit would have been insufficient to establish probable cause.” United States v. Carter, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 22478 (9th Cir. … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Burden of proof, Franks doctrine, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA9: Franks challenge has to include showing lack of PC

D.Ariz.: No REP in shared folder on computer open on eMule program

The government’s “pre-search” of a shared folder on defendant’s computer available through eMule was not subject to a reasonable expectation of privacy and was reasonable. United States v. Johnson, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146664 (D. Ariz. Aug. 21, 2023), adopting … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Burden of proof, Computer and cloud searches, Curtilage, Ineffective assistance | Comments Off on D.Ariz.: No REP in shared folder on computer open on eMule program

CA5: No police wrongdoing here to support “police created exigency”

Defendant came in to the police for an interview about sex assault in the Army. As it developed, exigency for seizure of defendant’s cell phone arose. This was not a police created exigency which requires some wrongdoing on the part … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Burden of proof, Emergency / exigency, Seizure, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA5: No police wrongdoing here to support “police created exigency”

CA6: Unintended target of a police shooting, another officer, has a 4A seizure and excessive force claim

One officer fired a gun at a suspect inside a dwelling, apparently without aiming, and hit another officer. That was still a Fourth Amendment seizure of the person of the officer despite being an unintended target. Kilnapp v. City of … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Burden of proof, Excessive force, Seizure | Comments Off on CA6: Unintended target of a police shooting, another officer, has a 4A seizure and excessive force claim

OH5: Pickup of visitor parked on street could be searched with SW for premises where it was suspected of drug transactions there

Defendant’s pickup was parked on the street in front of another man’s house that was searched with a warrant. His truck was searched too, but wasn’t mentioned in the warrant. “We find the search of the truck was authorized by … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Burden of proof, Probation / Parole search, Scope of search, Standing, Warrant execution | Comments Off on OH5: Pickup of visitor parked on street could be searched with SW for premises where it was suspected of drug transactions there

N.D.Ind.: “If six law enforcement officers testify credibly to a story that doesn’t make sense, is the Court bound to accept that testimony?” Yes.

“If six law enforcement officers testify credibly to a story that doesn’t make sense, is the Court bound to accept that testimony? That’s the question facing the Court on Defendant’s motion to suppress. Because the Court has no basis to … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Arrest or entry on arrest, Burden of proof, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on N.D.Ind.: “If six law enforcement officers testify credibly to a story that doesn’t make sense, is the Court bound to accept that testimony?” Yes.

CA10: Govt has to be shown to have property to be ordered to return it under Rule 41(g)

The district court lacked jurisdiction to order return of property under Rule 41(g) because it could not be shown that the government was in possession of the hard drive defendant sought return of. United States v. Toombs, 2023 U.S. App. … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on CA10: Govt has to be shown to have property to be ordered to return it under Rule 41(g)

E.D.N.Y.: What’s the burden under 18 U.S.C. § 1345 v. SW issuance? Preponderance or PC?

This is a patent action involving an AR-15 trigger mechanism that can convert the gun to a machine gun. The government got involved to enjoin it. The defendants seek a transfer to W.D.Tex. which is denied. The court addresses 18 … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof | Comments Off on E.D.N.Y.: What’s the burden under 18 U.S.C. § 1345 v. SW issuance? Preponderance or PC?

M.D.Fla.: Geofence SW decided on GFE alone

In this Hobbs Act robbery case, ATF got a geofence warrant to attempt to isolate who was committing a string of robberies in the Tampa Bay area. Instead of even considering the merits, the court goes directly to the good … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Burden of proof, Franks doctrine, geofence, Good faith exception | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: Geofence SW decided on GFE alone

IA: Dashcam video not conclusive evidence of justification for stop

The dashcam video of defendant’s stop wasn’t all that clear, and the trial court credited the officer’s testimony defendant drove some on the wrong side of the road at night in snowy conditions. That’s entitled to deference, as are reasonable … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof | Comments Off on IA: Dashcam video not conclusive evidence of justification for stop

DE: State failed in burden of proof on basis for stop

The state put on nothing at the suppression hearing to show that the stop was justified. Suppressed. State v. Skinner, 2023 Del. Super. LEXIS 96 (Feb. 10, 2023):*

Posted in Burden of proof | Comments Off on DE: State failed in burden of proof on basis for stop

E.D.Ky.: Failure to cross-examine at trial on some contradictions from SW affidavit was not IAC

Defendant’s 2255 ineffective assistance of counsel claim in part challenged defense counsel’s failure to cross-examine over contradictions in a search warrant affidavit by the witness. The government doesn’t address this, and assuming it was defective performance, the court finds a … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Ineffective assistance, Inevitable discovery | Comments Off on E.D.Ky.: Failure to cross-examine at trial on some contradictions from SW affidavit was not IAC

Three on what the dashcam didn’t show

Just because the dashcam video doesn’t show the traffic violation doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. The trooper testified that what he sees might be slightly different but still true. State v. Moore, 2023-Ohio-494, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 517 (4th … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof | Comments Off on Three on what the dashcam didn’t show

WI: A description of a Harley in Wisconsin in April is generic and not RS

The description of the offending vehicle as a Harley in Wisconsin is so generic it can’t support a stop. “After all, Wisconsin is the home of Harley-Davidson, and it is one of, if not the most popular manufacturers of motorcycles … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Qualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on WI: A description of a Harley in Wisconsin in April is generic and not RS

IN: Mistake of law to an illegal search or seizure applies to the scope of the law, not whether it even exists

The mistake of law “defense” to an illegal search or seizure applies to the scope of the law, not whether it even exists. Here, it didn’t. White v. State, 2022 Ind. App. LEXIS 390 (Dec. 8, 2022). The specific characteristics … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Burden of proof, Reasonable suspicion, Reasonableness | Comments Off on IN: Mistake of law to an illegal search or seizure applies to the scope of the law, not whether it even exists