Daily Archives: April 7, 2023

E.D.Tenn.: Mislabeling SW attachments not worthy of exclusion

Accidental reverse numbering of Attachments A and B didn’t make the search warrant void. United States v. Deakins, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60866 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 6, 2023).* Plaintiff’s claim that the Director of National Intelligence violates the Fourth Amendment … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, F.R.Crim.P. 41, Particularity, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on E.D.Tenn.: Mislabeling SW attachments not worthy of exclusion

MS: Thief has no standing in a stolen car

Defendant had no standing in a stolen vehicle. In addition, because it was stolen, impoundment and an inventory search would occur in any event, and that would have been legal anyway. Sills v. State, 2023 Miss. LEXIS 89 (Apr. 6, … Continue reading

Posted in Probation / Parole search, Standing | Comments Off on MS: Thief has no standing in a stolen car

NPR: Feds barged into the wrong hotel room during a drill, then detained the guest inside

NPR: Feds barged into the wrong hotel room during a drill, then detained the guest inside (“Federal agents and military personnel conducting a training exercise at a Boston hotel interrogated an unsuspecting civilian after they entered the wrong room by … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on NPR: Feds barged into the wrong hotel room during a drill, then detained the guest inside

VA: Smell of MJ from one person in car is PC to that person only

When the smell of marijuana is localized to one person, that’s the extent of the probable cause. If from the car, it’s the car. King v. Commonwealth, 2023 Va. App. LEXIS 213 (Apr. 4, 2023) (unpublished). The video showed that … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Exclusionary rule, Plain view, feel, smell | Comments Off on VA: Smell of MJ from one person in car is PC to that person only

CAAF: Cost of exclusion outweigh benefits, so no exclusion

In a sex assault case, assuming the search of defendant’s cell phone was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, the court concludes that the exclusionary rule should not be applied. M.R.E. 311. The error, if there was one, was the commanding … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on CAAF: Cost of exclusion outweigh benefits, so no exclusion