OH1: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in probation revo proceedings

The exclusionary rule does not apply to probation revocation proceedings. (Defendant relies on a 1983 case overruled in 1996.) State v. Richardson, 2021-Ohio-3362, 2021 Ohio App. LEXIS 3302 (1st Dist. Sept. 24, 2021).

Defendant’s 2255 reasserts numerous claims, one of which is a rehash of the denial of his motion to suppress 11 years ago with a slightly different argument. This time, the court finds that the motion would have been denied in any event because the firearm he was convicted of possessing for a decade was seen in plain view when officers were executing a search warrant for things to make bombs with. United States v. Zareck, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183468 (W.D.Pa. Sept. 23, 2021).*

“Weighing Officer Rogers’ testimony against Defendant’s declaration, the Court finds Officer Rogers’ version of events to be more credible and that he did not order Defendant to place his hands on the wheel.” Defendant did not testify. United States v. Duran, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183598 (E.D.Cal. Sept. 23, 2021).*

The affidavit for the search warrant for defendant’s cell phone in a stalking case showed probable cause to believe that the phone would have evidence of communications between them and location information to help prove he followed her. People v. Haupt, 2021 Mich. App. LEXIS 5636 (Sept. 23, 2021) (unpublished).*

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Plain view, feel, smell, Standards of review. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.