M.D.Fla.: Ptf can’t block documentary about his case

Plaintiff seeks to block airing of a documentary about his case because it would interfere with his collateral attack. Denied. Takhvar v. Warner Bros. Discovery Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163006 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 17, 2023)*:

At the core of his claims, Plaintiff contends the broadcast of his interrogation in the episode “The Robin Tattoo”—which aired after he was convicted and sentenced—interfered with his ability to pursue his collateral attack in federal court. As an initial matter, Plaintiff misunderstands the purpose of suppression of evidence in a criminal case. Defendants may invoke the protection guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment by filing a motion to suppress the evidence resulting from the unconstitutional search or seizure. A suppression motion asks the court to apply the “exclusionary rule,” which is the rule that evidence illegally seized cannot be admitted in evidence in a criminal trial. It does not mean that the evidence ceases to exist. Instead, courts considering suppression motions are aware of the evidence that is being sought to be excluded. See Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 591 (2006) (discussing the exclusionary rule). “[T]he exclusionary rule is not an individual right[.]” Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 141 (2009).

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.