LA5: Chain of custody issue after search isn’t a motion to suppress issue

A chain of custody dispute from a search isn’t proper in a motion to suppress. That’s a trial issue. State v. Mackey, 2021 La. App. LEXIS 1068 (La. App. 5 Cir. July 12, 2021).

“Plaintiff Sally Gaetjens sued various local government officials for entering and condemning her home and confiscating her thirty-seven cats, all without a warrant. She’s right that the Fourth Amendment would usually prohibit such conduct. But emergencies breed exceptions—and this case is littered with emergencies. [¶] Namely, Gaetjens went missing in action, and Defendants had reason to believe that she was experiencing a medical emergency. Plus, when Defendants attempted to check her home, they deemed it so noxious that it posed a public-safety risk. Given these exigencies, the Fourth Amendment did not require Defendants to wait for judicial approval before acting. We thus affirm the decision of the district court granting summary judgment to Defendants.” Gaetjens v. City of Loves Park, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 20699 (7th Cir. July 13, 2021).

There was reasonable suspicion for defendant’s stop near the border based on a traffic offense and numerous other factors on the totality, including a handprint in the dust on the trunk indicating the trunk was opened and closed after driving on dirt roads. United States v. Rodriguez, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129625 (D. N.M. July 12, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Admissibility of evidence, Emergency / exigency, Immigration arrests, Motion to suppress. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.