KS: Def’s general motion to suppress didn’t preserve particularity for appeal

“Huggins argued one reason for suppression at trial and hopes the language of his objection was sufficiently vague to preserve a different basis for appeal. This defeats the statutory requirement for specificity, and it leaves trial courts guessing what the grounds for an objection may be. We are disinclined to retreat from our long-held position that a party must state to the trial court the basis for an objection. And Huggins does not contend that any exceptions to the contemporaneous objection rule apply to his situation. [¶] Because the issue of the particularity of the search warrant was not set out to the court at trial, we will not address it on appeal.” State v. Huggins, 2024 Kan. LEXIS 80 (Aug. 30, 2024).

Defense counsel’s failure to object to the USMJ’s R&R on the Fourth Amendment claim isn’t ineffective assistance because the Fourth Amendment claim was unmeritorious. Fisher v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155202 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 29, 2024).*

Officers had a 911 call about a man with a gun in a KFC bag. When they encountered defendant, they could see a gun protruding from a cross-body bag. All together, that was reasonable suspicion. United States v. Williams, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155840 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 29, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading, Ineffective assistance, Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion, Waiver. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.