{"id":19097,"date":"2015-10-05T07:29:27","date_gmt":"2015-10-05T12:29:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=19097"},"modified":"2015-10-05T07:29:27","modified_gmt":"2015-10-05T12:29:27","slug":"ca5-suppression-of-evidence-in-state-court-does-not-per-se-raise-a-basis-for-a-claim-in-federal-court-on-whether-the-officers-violated-clearly-established-rights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=19097","title":{"rendered":"CA5: Suppression of evidence in state court does not per se raise a basis for a claim in federal court on whether the officers violated clearly established rights"},"content":{"rendered":"

Suppression of evidence in state court does not per se raise a basis for a claim in federal court on whether the officers violated clearly established rights, particularly when the suppression hearing transcript wasn\u2019t provided to the federal court. Cleveland v. Liberty County Sheriff’s Dep’t<\/a>, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17374 (5th Cir. September 30, 2015):
\n<\/p>\n

Additionally, the mere fact that the evidence was suppressed in state court does not, by itself, raise a factual issue about whether the officers violated the Clevelands’ clearly established rights. See, e.g., Vickers v. Georgia, 567 F. App’x 744, 746-47 (11th Cir. 2014) (acknowledging state court’s suppression of evidence but finding officials did not violate clearly established law after an independent review of the facts); Buchanan v. Kelly, 592 F. App’x 503, 504-07 (7th Cir. 2014) (same); Murphy v. Bendig, 232 F. App’x 150, 152-53 (3rd Cir. 2007) (similar); Richmond v. City of Brooklyn Ctr., 490 F.3d 1002, 1005-09 (8th Cir. 2007) (similar); Hardesty, 461 F.3d at 651 (holding a state court’s suppression did not have preclusive effect in the plaintiff’s \u00a7 1983 suit regarding the legality of a search). Because the Clevelands did not proffer the state court’s findings as part of the record in the district court, we need not decide the degree of deference, if any, to be given those findings.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Suppression of evidence in state court does not per se raise a basis for a claim in federal court on whether the officers violated clearly established rights, particularly when the suppression hearing transcript wasn\u2019t provided to the federal court. Cleveland … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[45,40],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19097","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-45","category-qualified-immunity"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19097","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=19097"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19097\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":19098,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19097\/revisions\/19098"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=19097"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=19097"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=19097"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}