CA11: Without a factual dispute, there’s no requirement of a suppression hearing

The suppression “hearing” was a five-minute discussion of the law, and there were no factual disputes presented. Therefore, “defendant need not be present for any ‘conference or hearing on a question of law.’ Fed. R. Crim. P. 43(b)(3).” United States v. Vance, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 12547 (11th Cir. May 22, 2023).

When police arrived, one outside could see defendant place something in the kitchen cabinet. Officers had reasonable suspicion to seize that person. Consent of another to look for it was still voluntary. [What about protective sweep?] United States v. Franklin, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 12671 (4th Cir. May 23, 2023).*

“[W]e agree with the district court that Detective Schuler’s request for a search warrant from the Columbus municipal judge did not initiate a federal proceeding, and consequently, Rule 41(b) did not apply.” There also was no Franks violation shown. The challenged statements were not misleading. United States v. Douglas, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 12713 (4th Cir. May 23, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Consent, F.R.Crim.P. 41, Suppression hearings. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.