OH5: A replevin action can’t be used to suppress evidence seized by SW

A replevin action can’t be used to suppress evidence seized by search warrant. Glass v. Del. Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 2024-Ohio-1301, 2024 Ohio App. LEXIS 1235 (5th Dist. Apr. 4, 2024).

Defendant fails his Franks burden, and the warrant wasn’t stale. United States v. Wheeler, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63002 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 5, 2024).*

“The government now concedes that the affidavit supporting Gray’s arrest warrant was a bare bones affidavit. Because only a bare bones affidavit supported the seizures of the two firearms during Gray’s arrest, the district court erroneously denied the motion to suppress those firearms. However, the government convincingly argues that because the third firearm was seized under a separate search warrant, we should remand so that the district court can analyze whether law enforcement would have obtained such search warrant independent of the information gleaned during Gray’s arrest.” United States v. Gray, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 8284 (6th Cir. Apr. 5, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Independent source, Suppression hearings. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.