D.Nev.: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply before grand juries

Calandra revisited [and I haven’t seen it since Calandra]: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply before grand juries. United States v. Jones, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11132 (D. Nev. Jan. 21, 2025).

The search warrant was based on two controlled buys plus the CI’s information. Even if the latter was erroneous, the former was sufficient. United States v. Haskins, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 1232 (7th Cir. Jan. 21, 2025).*

Defendant was walking behind closed businesses at 1:30 am with a shovel over his shoulder. When stopped by the officer he became belligerent and said he knew his Second Amendment rights. His frenzied actions where he was added up to reasonable suspicion. State v. McKenzie, 2025-Ohio-150 (5th Dist. Jan. 21, 2025).*

Defendant’s 2254 chain of custody argument conflates admissibility of evidence and the Fourth Amendment, and it’s denied as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. United States v. Kramer, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9802 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 21, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Ineffective assistance, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.