{"id":57609,"date":"2024-04-16T14:40:15","date_gmt":"2024-04-16T19:40:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=57609"},"modified":"2024-04-16T14:40:15","modified_gmt":"2024-04-16T19:40:15","slug":"ca4-court-instructing-that-the-legality-of-searches-were-questions-for-the-court-wasnt-error","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=57609","title":{"rendered":"CA4: Court instructing that the legality of searches were questions for the court wasn&#8217;t error"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Defense counsel asked a question about something being in plain view which led to discussion of whether those words were an effort to challenge the search before the jury. The court instructed the jury that the legality of searches was a question for the court. Defendant\u2019s objection that it amounted to giving the court\u2019s imprimatur to the government\u2019s case is rejected. The court was trying to prevent \u201cskittering off\u201d on a tangent. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ca4.uscourts.gov\/opinions\/234222.P.pdf\">United States v. Askew<\/a>, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 8623 (4th Cir. Apr. 10, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The district court credited the officers\u2019 testimony leading to finding reasonable suspicion for a stop-and-frisk. \u201cAlthough \u2018we reverse when a district court credits exceedingly improbable testimony,\u2019 the inconsistencies Evans identifies do not meet that standard. United States v. Tucker, 12 F.4th 804, 813 (2021).\u201d United States v. Evans, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 9095 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 16, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The contents of defendant\u2019s purse were in plain view; it was unzipped and the contents could be seen from outside. United States v. Williams, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64450 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Defense counsel asked a question about something being in plain view which led to discussion of whether those words were an effort to challenge the search before the jury. The court instructed the jury that the legality of searches was &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=57609\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/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":[124,51,35,4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-57609","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-admissibility-of-evidence","category-plain-view","category-reasonable-suspicion","category-stop-and-frisk"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57609","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=57609"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57609\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":57610,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57609\/revisions\/57610"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=57609"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=57609"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=57609"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}