While the legality of an arrest may be determined by state law, the Fourth Amendment governs suppression in federal court

Defendant’s arrest was valid under state law, but, even if it was not, the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule applies to constitutional violations, not state law violations, and this is the majority rule. United States v. Planells-Guerra, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62417 (D. Utah August 23, 2007)*:

Most courts hinge the validity of searches incident to arrest and the application of the exclusionary rule on whether the arrest violated federal Fourth Amendment principles, not state law. 22 Consequently, when an officer has probable cause to make an arrest and the arrest does not otherwise offend constitutional principles, the resulting search incident to arrest does not violate the Fourth Amendment even where the officers lack authority to make the arrest under state law.

Factual disputes preclude summary judgment in false arrest and excessive force case, and that includes qualified immunity. Parris v. Huttie, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62233 (W.D. Mo. August 21, 2007).*

Warrantless entry in a homicide case was based on probable cause and exigent circumstances, so summary judgment was granted the defendants on most of the claims. Curiel v. County of Contra Costa, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62032 (N.D. Cal. August 13, 2007).*

Defendant’s mother, who primarily spoke Portugese, consented to an entry that led to removal of a minor female from her son’s room where she was found with the door open. The court finds that she understood enough English to consent because she was answering questions at the suppression hearing before the question was finished. Commonwealth v. Costa, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 823, 872 N.E.2d 750 (2007).*