\u201cBut in any event, even where Fourth Amendment violations have occurred\u2014which, the Court takes pains to restate, is not the case here\u2014a dismissal of an indictment is generally not the appropriate remedy. United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361, 365-66, 101 S. Ct. 665, 66 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1981) (\u2018[W]e have not suggested that searches and seizures contrary to the Fourth Amendment warrant dismissal of the indictment. The remedy in the criminal proceedings is limited to denying the prosecution the fruits of its transgression.\u2019). The Court thus declines to dismiss the indictment on these asserted grounds.\u201d United States v. Gedeon, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118234 (E.D. Pa. July 10, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The bulge in defendant\u2019s clothing suggested a gun, and that justified a patdown. State v. Garcia, 2023-Ohio-2346 (5th Dist. July 5, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The search warrant based on the dog sniff of defendant\u2019s apartment door was previously upheld. Defendant\u2019s claim that it led to another search is not suppressible. United States v. Peck, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117859 (D.Neb. June 20, 2023) (R&R).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cBut in any event, even where Fourth Amendment violations have occurred\u2014which, the Court takes pains to restate, is not the case here\u2014a dismissal of an indictment is generally not the appropriate remedy. United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361, 365-66, … Continue reading