Officers relied on settled law in this circuit that the search incident was valid. Maybe it wouldn\u2019t be later, but it was at the time. The exclusionary rule should not be applied under Davis. \u201cGiven the similarity of these two cases, it is difficult to see how it could be that Eatherton is not the type of \u2018clear and well-settled\u2019 precedent on which law enforcement is entitled to rely such that a search conducted in reliance on that precedent would not be protected by the good faith exception. That is, when there is binding precedent almost exactly on point, I do not see how it could be considered unreasonable for law enforcement to rely on it. And thus I do not see how it could be the case that the exclusionary rule could be triggered.\u201d United States v. Perez, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72882 (D.Me. Apr. 21, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The district court\u2019s fact finding on the motion to suppress has support in the record and that\u2019s determinative. United States v. Parker<\/a>, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 10777 (10th Cir. Apr. 21, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n The use of a biting police dog here in prison was reasonable under both the Fourth and Eighth Amendments. The Fourth Amendment standard is more \u201cplaintiff friendly\u201d than the Eighth. It was proportional to the need. Hughes v. Rodriguez<\/a>, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 10788 (9th Cir. Apr. 21, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Officers relied on settled law in this circuit that the search incident was valid. Maybe it wouldn\u2019t be later, but it was at the time. The exclusionary rule should not be applied under Davis. \u201cGiven the similarity of these two … Continue reading