S.D.Ohio: Federal suit to force state court to apply exclusionary rule barred by Younger and Rooker/Feldman

Plaintiff’s suit in federal court to cause state court to apply the exclusionary rule in state court is barred by Younger and Rooker/Feldman. Chappel v. Adams Cnty. Child.’s Servs., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112877 (S.D. Ohio May 19, 2023).

Defendant’s appeal forfeited the issue of the validity of the search warrant by not citing to anything in the appeal brief. On the merits, dealt with first, he’d lose anyway. People v. Cummings, 2023 IL App (1st) 220520, 2023 Ill. App. LEXIS 243 (June 30, 2023).*

The normal deadlines for filing a motion to suppress don’t apply when there’s a retrial. The court can set reasonable deadlines. Zadeh v. State, 2023 Md. App. LEXIS 423 (June 29, 2023).*

“Here, the factual allegations contained in the two affidavits attached to the warrant application provided probable cause to believe that defendant was operating a drug business out of his residence based on the observations of a confidential informant (CI) and surveillance conducted by the [police] …. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the reliability of the CI was established by the statement of one of the officers that the CI had given credible and accurate information in the past ….” Defendant’s staleness claim is unpreserved. People v Baez, | 2023 NY Slip Op 03651, 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3576 (4th Dept. June 30, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Informant hearsay, Issue preclusion, Motion to suppress. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.