Category Archives: Inevitable discovery

E.D.Wis: Faced with motion to suppress DNA evidence, govt can seek it again

The government obtained DNA and defendant moved to suppress. Then the government sought DNA by warrant again with a new warrant. It is permitted to do so. United States v. Watson, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185148 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 16, … Continue reading →

Posted in DNA, Independent source, Inevitable discovery | Comments Off on E.D.Wis: Faced with motion to suppress DNA evidence, govt can seek it again

CA10: Inevitable discovery applies despite lack of PC in first SW

Even though the initial search warrant was issued without probable cause, inevitable discovery can still apply. United States v. Streett, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 26423 (10th Cir. Oct. 5, 2023):

Posted in Inevitable discovery | Comments Off on CA10: Inevitable discovery applies despite lack of PC in first SW

S.D.Ind. Warrant for video surveillance required under Title III

A warrant for CCTV surveillance of the defendant came under the wiretap statute, Title III, and necessity and probable cause was shown. United States v. Jones, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178457 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 4, 2023). The totality of information … Continue reading →

Posted in Dog sniff, Inevitable discovery, Reasonable suspicion, Video surveillance | Comments Off on S.D.Ind. Warrant for video surveillance required under Title III

CA2: CP download 8 mo. before SW at least saved by GFE if no PC

A single download of child pornography eight months before the warrant was sought was at least supported by the good faith exception even if there wasn’t probable cause. United States v. Pratt, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 25977 (2d Cir. Oct. … Continue reading →

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Good faith exception, Inevitable discovery, Probable cause, Staleness | Comments Off on CA2: CP download 8 mo. before SW at least saved by GFE if no PC

W.D.N.C.: Alleged distinction between smell of MJ and hemp not material here

The distinction between the smell of legal hemp and illegal marijuana wasn’t material where the officer testified he smelled marijuana. United States v. Harris, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164723 (W.D.N.C. Sep. 14, 2023).* Defendant was speeding. The stop produced a … Continue reading →

Posted in Inevitable discovery, Plain view, feel, smell, Standards of review | Comments Off on W.D.N.C.: Alleged distinction between smell of MJ and hemp not material here

CA8: Citizen informant’s reports of def having gun in a wheelchair were reliable and provided PC

Citizen informants’ reports of defendant having a firearm in his wheelchair justified the stop and search on probable cause and exigency. United States v. Cunningham, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 14638 (8th Cir. June 13, 2023).* Defendant had standing in another … Continue reading →

Posted in Inevitable discovery, Informant hearsay, Standing | Comments Off on CA8: Citizen informant’s reports of def having gun in a wheelchair were reliable and provided PC

LA4: State carries burden on inevitable discovery and it failed here

Here there was a warrantless entry into the house for a gun. Defendant was in custody outside. The state had the burden on inevitable discovery and failed. “In the instant case, the state failed to point to any alternative lawful … Continue reading →

Posted in Inevitable discovery, Reasonableness, Seizure | Comments Off on LA4: State carries burden on inevitable discovery and it failed here

D.V.I.: Flyover of curtilage from navigable airspace was reasonable

Officers did a flyover of defendant’s home from navigable airspace and saw a marijuana grow. While he had a subjective reasonable expectation of privacy in the curtilage, not from 2000′. United States v. Flavius, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92974 (D.V.I. … Continue reading →

Posted in Curtilage, Inevitable discovery, Plain view, feel, smell, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on D.V.I.: Flyover of curtilage from navigable airspace was reasonable

CA9: Mere typo in SW affidavit doesn’t support Franks challenge

Defendant’s Franks challenge was conclusory and based on mere typographical errors. United States v. Howard, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 9069 (9th Cir. Apr. 17, 2023). Habeas petitioner’s admission of procedural default of his Fourth Amendment claim was an admission there … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Franks doctrine, Inevitable discovery, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on CA9: Mere typo in SW affidavit doesn’t support Franks challenge

CA10: Five seconds is de minimus under Rodriguez

In a short per curiam, the Tenth Circuit upholds a dog sniff under Rodriguez without explanation. The concurrence, however, tells us that the stop was extended five seconds past the “Rodriguez moment” as still reasonable. United States v. Hayes, 2023 … Continue reading →

Posted in Inevitable discovery, Inventory, Reasonableness | Comments Off on CA10: Five seconds is de minimus under Rodriguez

CA10: Where someone was summoned to take def’s car from scene of stop, inventory of backpack was unreasonable

The search incident of defendant’s backpack was unreasonable. The government relies instead on inevitable discovery that the backpack would have been inventoried. Here, however, a friend of defendant summoned to the scene could have taken the backpack, so the government … Continue reading →

Posted in Inevitable discovery, Inventory | Comments Off on CA10: Where someone was summoned to take def’s car from scene of stop, inventory of backpack was unreasonable

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

CA10: “perfunctory factual references” with three legal theories not enough to get a suppression hearing

“Rather than outline factual disputes, Windom’s motion to suppress offered three legal arguments—staleness, nexus, and lack of good faith—for why the affidavit was insufficient to support a search warrant. These arguments contained only perfunctory factual references, with none rising to … Continue reading →

Posted in Inevitable discovery, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on CA10: “perfunctory factual references” with three legal theories not enough to get a suppression hearing

CA11: Inventory applied even if automobile exception not satisfied

The search of defendant’s car would have happened as a result of an inventory search whether or not the automobile exception applied. Therefore, inevitable discovery was satisfied. United States v. Russell, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 3820 (11th Cir. Feb. 17, … Continue reading →

Posted in Inevitable discovery, Qualified immunity, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on CA11: Inventory applied even if automobile exception not satisfied

E.D.Va.: Search of cell phone at school for explicit photos of 14-year-old reasonable under T.L.O.

A 13-year-old male student was showing explicit pictures of a 14-year-old girl on his phone at school. The search of the phone by school officials was reasonable under T.L.O., and it led him to juvenile court. O.W. v. Sch. Bd. … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Franks doctrine, Inevitable discovery, School searches | Comments Off on E.D.Va.: Search of cell phone at school for explicit photos of 14-year-old reasonable under T.L.O.

D.Minn.: Placing GPS on vehicle 2.5 hours before SW issued didn’t require suppression

“This Court concludes that the supporting affidavit for the GPS tracking warrant establishes probable cause.” “Here, it is undisputed that when the GPS tracking device was placed on the gold Chevy Tahoe at approximately 5:00 p.m. on March 3, 2022, … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, DNA, GPS / Tracking Data, Independent source, Inevitable discovery | Comments Off on D.Minn.: Placing GPS on vehicle 2.5 hours before SW issued didn’t require suppression

DC: “Handcuffing is ordinarily improper in a Terry stop absent an objective safety concern.”

“Handcuffing is ordinarily improper in a Terry stop absent an objective safety concern. See United States v. Smith, 373 F. Supp. 3d 223, 241 (D.D.C. 2019); Haynes v. Minnehan, 14 F.4th 830, 835 n.4 (8th Cir. 2021) (‘[A]bsent an objective … Continue reading →

Posted in Inevitable discovery, Reasonable suspicion, Search incident, State constitution | Comments Off on DC: “Handcuffing is ordinarily improper in a Terry stop absent an objective safety concern.”

Cal.2: MJ smell associated with minors still RS for an offense

Officers ran an LPN and saw that the vehicle had expired tags. Driving next to the car, officers smelled burnt marijuana and knew that the users were minors which is still an offense under California law. That was cause for … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance, Inevitable discovery, Plain view, feel, smell | Comments Off on Cal.2: MJ smell associated with minors still RS for an offense

OH: Opening car door was to secure uncooperative def, not search; plain view valid

Opening the car door was not for the purpose of searching; it was to secure the uncooperative defendant. During the interaction, evidence in plain view was seen and the officer then could enter the car to secure it. State v. … Continue reading →

Posted in Inevitable discovery, Mail and packages, Plain view, feel, smell, Qualified immunity, Search, Standing | Comments Off on OH: Opening car door was to secure uncooperative def, not search; plain view valid

OR: Holding def’s ID for 30 minutes for no apparent reason was a seizure without RS

Retaining defendant’s ID for 30 minutes before even thinking about questioning his identity was a seizure without reasonable suspicion. State v. Orman, 322 Or. App. 707, 2022 Ore. App. LEXIS 1479 (Nov. 16, 2022). Defendant was not seized when he … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Inevitable discovery, Seizure | Comments Off on OR: Holding def’s ID for 30 minutes for no apparent reason was a seizure without RS