Daily Archives: February 4, 2025

MS: Admitted “general crime control” roadblock still upheld based on part-time officer’s inexperience

While the officer in charge of the DL roadblock (highway safety) essentially admitted it was for general crime control (see Edmund v. City of Indianapolis), the court goes with the DUI arrest being valid. The officer “was the most inexperienced … Continue reading

Posted in Issue preclusion, Probable cause, Roadblocks | Comments Off on MS: Admitted “general crime control” roadblock still upheld based on part-time officer’s inexperience

CA3: There is no REP in the exterior of a package in transit

The initial detention and exterior inspection of the parcel sent to defendant did not implicate his Fourth Amendment rights because it occurred within the guaranteed delivery window. He had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the exterior of the parcel … Continue reading

Posted in Mail and packages, Motion to suppress, Plain view, feel, smell, Standing | Comments Off on CA3: There is no REP in the exterior of a package in transit

NY Erie Co.: State prosecutors have no control over federal officers involved in state search for discovery purposes

State prosecutors aren’t necessarily obliged to give over information on federal officers present at a state search considering they have no control over them and their testimony may be hard fought via Touhy letters and they may have nothing additional … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on NY Erie Co.: State prosecutors have no control over federal officers involved in state search for discovery purposes

AR: Questions about legality of search before jury properly excluded under 403

Where the trial court denied the pretrial motion to suppress, cross-examination of the officer about the legality of the search was properly denied on objection by the state as potentially misleading to the jury. Damon v. State, 2025 Ark. App. … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Informant hearsay, Qualified immunity, Standing | Comments Off on AR: Questions about legality of search before jury properly excluded under 403