\u201cRuiz argues that, because Carozzi lacked the statutory authority to arrest him outside the park, the arrest violated his Fourth Amendment rights, and therefore all evidence collected subsequent to his arrest (i.e., the breathalyzer results) must be suppressed. In the alternative, Ruiz argues that the court should exercise its supervisory power and suppress the evidence to disincentivize park rangers from making arrests beyond the park’s boundaries in the future. Neither of these arguments is availing, as described below.\u201d Virginia v. Moore. United States v. Ruiz, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213110 (D. Mass. Nov. 25, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s motion to suppress is denied as to probable cause for the search. A hearing will be set on whether a protective sweep was reasonable. United States v. Delira, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212944 (D. Neb. Nov. 8, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cMincy claims the search of his drawstring bag violated his Fourth Amendment rights. This is a close case. The government concedes it did not have a warrant to search that closed bag, but relies on two exceptions to the warrant requirement: a search-incident-to-arrest and an inventory search. As described below, the Court finds that the evidence supports the former exception, if barely. And thus, the Court need not consider the latter.\u201d United States v. Mincy, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213007 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 23, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cRuiz argues that, because Carozzi lacked the statutory authority to arrest him outside the park, the arrest violated his Fourth Amendment rights, and therefore all evidence collected subsequent to his arrest (i.e., the breathalyzer results) must be suppressed. In the … Continue reading