D.Minn.: Tracking warrant that provided for tracking but not installation was saved by GFE

The tracking warrant provided for tracking of the car, but did not mention installing the tracker. The court finds the good faith exception applies. United States v. Gonzalez, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142057 (D.Minn. Aug. 15, 2023).

There was probable cause for defendant’s stop and BAC test. Allen v. Commonwealth, 2023 Va. App. LEXIS 550 (Aug. 15, 2023).*

In this Maryland county, motions to suppress are done during trial in juvenile court, but it still should have been in a pretrial motion. A post-conviction petition is how this will be addressed. In re C.G., 2023 Md. App. LEXIS 541 (Aug. 14, 2023).*

“Since there is no reasonable probability the motion to suppress the inventory search of Mr. Honzu’s vehicle would have been granted, defense counsel were not ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress on those grounds.” State v. Honzu, 2023-Ohio-2831, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 2793 (11th Dist. Aug. 14, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Good faith exception, Ineffective assistance, Motion to suppress, Probable cause, Tracking warrant. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.