OR: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to criminally dangerous person civil commitments

Neither the state nor federal exclusionary rule does not apply in criminal dangerous person civil commitments. State v. T.L.B. (In re T.L.B.), 335 Or. App. 225 (Sep. 25, 2024).

The officer here saw defendant walking at night in a neighborhood where no one walks at night. He turned the car around and came up to defendant to talk to him. Defendant instead fled and abandoned his backpack. The initial encounter wasn’t a stop. United States v. Emory, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172325 (C.D. Ill. Sep. 24, 2024).*

Defendant is found to have consented to the search of his cell phone. He had some experience in the criminal justice system, and he talked with the police about procedures. United States v. Egli, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172232 (N.D. Iowa Sep. 24, 2024).*

Plaintiff pled enough to show officers lacked reasonable suspicion for his stop. Degenhardt v. Bintliff, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 24251 (5th Cir. Sep. 24, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Abandonment, Consent, Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.