Cal.1st: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to DL suspensions

The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to DL suspension proceedings. Kazelka v. Cal. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 196 (1st Dist. Mar. 27, 2025).

Officers responded to a shots fired call in a Bronx apartment and entered and arrested defendant. He didn’t challenge the entry and plain view. He didn’t consent so a search warrant was obtained, and it was issued with probable cause. United States v. Mejia, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57318 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2025).*

Defendant was validly stopped because his temporary tag had a red not white light over it in violation of state law. The fact it was a temporary tag not a permanent license plate, so it doesn’t matter. United States v. Cordova, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57061 (D. Ariz. Mar. 27, 2025).*

The officers’ safety entry into defendant’s apartment was reasonable. Even excluding all the information about that, there was still justification to search. His parole officer didn’t need to be there. United States v. Feltner, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56942 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 27, 2025).*

Defendant’s stop for walking in the street and not on the sidewalk was reasonable. State v. Ndiaye, 2025-Ohio-1069 (10th Dist. Mar. 27, 2025).*

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

Comments are closed.