W.D.Mo.: Prior ruling on motion to suppress before speedy trial dismissal was law of the case

Defendant lost a motion to suppress but won a speedy trial dismissal without prejudice. Reindicted, he filed another motion to suppress, but law of the case applies. United States v. Bell, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41924 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 7, 2025).

“Attenuation is determined, in turn, using the Brown factors: ‘(1) the temporal proximity of the illegal entry and the consent, (2) the presence of intervening circumstances, and, particularly, (3) the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.’ United States v. Robeles-Ortega, … (citing Brown v. Illinois, … (cleaned up). [¶] The Court isn’t so sure that Brown applies, but in the interest of efficiency, it takes Hurd at his word. Even assuming the officers’ conduct violates the Fourth Amendment, the taint of those violations quickly dissipated throughout the episode.” United States v. Hurd, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41516 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2025).*

“Throughout his various briefing, Nixon claims that the County violated his Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We need not address his Fourth Amendment claim any further as he fails to include it in his Amended Complaint.” Nixon v. Dall. Cty., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5389 (5th Cir. Mar. 7, 2025).*

Plaintiff didn’t adequately plead his Fourth Amendment claim of seizure. Djonovic v. Septer, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5380 (6th Cir. Mar. 6, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Attenuation, Burden of pleading, Issue preclusion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.