CA11: Dist Ct acted within its discretion denying a suppression motion as untimely

Defense counsel waited past the pretrial motions deadline to file a motion to suppress complaining that he needed a state court transcript, but that hearing was long ago. The district court acted within its discretion in denying the motion for untimeliness. United States v. Fernetus, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 39533 (11th Cir. Dec. 16, 2020).

“In addition, none of the other situations precluding the good faith exception apply as there is nothing in the record that even hints that the Magistrate Judge who reviewed the affidavit and signed the search warrant engaged in any misconduct or abrogation of judicial responsibility. Moreover, the warrant is facially valid in that it describes in sufficient detail the things to be seized, the location for the search, and it is signed by a Magistrate Judge. … Accordingly, the agents executing the warrant were justified in believing in its validity, and evidence seized during the execution would not be subject to suppression under the good faith exception even if the warrant were found to lack probable cause.” United States v. Latorre, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 236111 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 23, 2020),* adopted, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 235118 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 15, 2020).*

This entry was posted in Good faith exception, Motion to suppress. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.