D.P.R.: Statement taken in violation of Miranda likely usable for impeachment

Defendant’s statement allegedly in violation of Miranda that the government doesn’t intend to use may be used for impeachment if the defendant contradicts them under Harris. United States v. Cardona, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22757 (D.P.R. Feb. 6, 2025).

Inferences for reasonable suspicion and subjectivity: “In sum, the Court did not clearly error by imposing a requirement that the Rangers subjectively believe a fact (e.g., that an occupant of the Truck obtained drug paraphernalia from Defendant) in order for an inference drawn from said fact to be considered reasonable. This and most of the other charges of error summarized above in support of the government’s bid for reconsideration of the Order amount to complaints that the Court disagrees with the government about the objective reasonableness of the inferences it argues support a finding of reasonable suspicion. Nothing in the government’s motion undermines that the Court properly considered the totality of circumstances, including facts that support the government’s favored inferences and facts that tend to undermine those inferences, and correctly concluded that reasonable suspicion to seize Defendant was absent under the totality of circumstances. On this record, the government has failed to show it is entitled to the “extraordinary remedy” of reconsideration of the Order.” United States v. Holloway, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22593 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2025).*

Defendant’s Jeep was regularly parked at the address to searched, and he was believed involved in robberies. That gave probable cause to search the house. United States v. Whited, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 2774 (6th Cir. Feb. 5, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Custody, Exclusionary rule, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.