CA9: Where there are two grounds to support the search, appeal of only one means affirmance

There were two grounds on which defendant’s suppression motion could have been denied. The fact the court didn’t give defendant an opportunity to respond to one was a moot point. In addition, even if the motion had been granted, the outcome wouldn’t be different, so it’s harmless error. United States v. Cislo, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6907 (9th Cir. April 20, 2017).

The state didn’t prove a justification for the search of defendant’s person, so the motion to suppress is granted. As to the search of a building, defendant raised that at the last minute, and there was no showing he had any reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched. State v. Hall, 2017 Del. Super. LEXIS 193 (April 21, 2017).*

This entry was posted in Burden of proof. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.