W.D.Pa.: File your motion to suppress, and the court will hear a Brady then

What defendant knows about his search, since it happened to him, is enough to file a motion to suppress. His discovery request beyond what he already knows about the search should wait for him to file a motion to suppress. Then the court will entertain it. United States v. Hertel & Brown Physical & Aquatic Therapy, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98239, at *67-68 (W.D. Pa. June 3, 2024):

And because a defendant is typically aware of the circumstances under which a search and seizure occurred, the defendant is also possessed of sufficient information to assert a motion to suppress the evidence that was seized, based on the perceived constitutional defect.

That is the situation here. Hertel’s request for electronic search information concerns a perceived Fourth Amendment process violation, and he is already aware of the putative basis for asserting his Fourth Amendment challenge. Like the Government, this Court is of the view that Hertel should proceed with filing his intended suppression motion if he so desires, and the Government will then be permitted to respond. To the extent any future suppression motion requires further record development, the defense will have an opportunity to pursue relevant information, and the Government will be better positioned to assess its Brady obligations, if any, as they relate to Hertel’s suppression arguments.

This entry was posted in Motion to suppress. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.