OH3: Even where the SW return was overlooked for a year, no exclusion

The state violated its rule 41 because the return was a year late. The exclusionary rule applies to constitutional violations, not rule violations, and the trial court erred in fashioning its own exclusionary rule here. State v. Nevels, 2024-Ohio-4964, 2024 Ohio App. LEXIS 3701 (3d Dist. Oct. 15, 2024).

“Considering the totality of the circumstances, and giving deference to the issuing magistrate’s decision as required, the Court finds that the search warrant affidavit provided sufficient probable cause that evidence of the alleged crimes — wire fraud and money laundering conspiracy—would be found in Takyi’s Apple accounts. … The evidence thus showed a fraud conspiracy between Boadu, Oduro, Takyi, Ansah, and others.” United States v. Takyi, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186649 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 21, 2024).*

The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to probation violations, and the court declines to apply it to pretext framed as a Rochin “outrage” claim. Commonwealth v. Gelin, 2024 Mass. LEXIS 408 (Oct. 15, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Probable cause, Probation / Parole search, Warrant papers. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.