\u201cNevertheless, Petitioner’s arguments for suppression do not succeed. [\u00b6] This is because police ultimately found the firearm and ammunition from an independent source, thus defeating the need for suppression. Under the independent source doctrine, evidence that was \u2018initially discovered during police officers’ illegal entry of private premises\u2019 need not be suppressed \u2018if that evidence is also discovered during a later search pursuant to a valid warrant that is wholly independent of the initial illegal entry.\u2019 [\u00b6] That is exactly what happened here. …\u201d Coleman v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36697 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 6, 2018).<\/p>\n
Retroactivity of Birchfield needs better record preservation. Remanded. Parshall v. State<\/a>, 2018 ND 69 (Mar. 8, 2018).* [Why is it that the only Fourth Amendment cases from the Dakotas for the last few years are DWI cases?]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201cNevertheless, Petitioner’s arguments for suppression do not succeed. [\u00b6] This is because police ultimately found the firearm and ammunition from an independent source, thus defeating the need for suppression. Under the independent source doctrine, evidence that was \u2018initially discovered during … Continue reading