\u201cDefendant witnessed a crime. Rather than leaving the scene, he remained to talk to the police. The police then violated his Fourth Amendment rights by subjecting him to a suspicionless pat-down, and the ATF took advantage of his arrest on a state misdemeanor gun charge to further investigate him for federal firearms violations. The primary purpose of the exclusionary rule \u2014 to deter police overreaching \u2014 is served by suppressing not just the gun and defendant’s statements but also the additional evidence the ATF obtained as a result of defendant’s statements.\u201d United States v. Ivory, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176033 (E.D. Wis. December 22, 2014).<\/p>\n
Jardines doesn\u2019t bar a trash pull from a trash container awaiting pickup on the sidewalk. United States v. Johnson, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175815 (D. Nev. July 29, 2014).*<\/p>\n
Police received a call about a felony assault the day before by a Javon in a red Monte Carlo who might be coming back to do it again. No weapon was involved in the incident. A BOLO went out, and the vehicle was shortly seen. The LPN came back to Javon Shackleford, the defendant. There was probable cause for the stop, and that included a search incident for a weapon. United States v. Shackleford, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176173 (W.D. Mo. December 5, 2014).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cDefendant witnessed a crime. Rather than leaving the scene, he remained to talk to the police. The police then violated his Fourth Amendment rights by subjecting him to a suspicionless pat-down, and the ATF took advantage of his arrest on … Continue reading