Defendant was illegally arrested and searched, and then an unMirandized statement was taken from him, and then he was Mirandized for a second, official, statement where the product of the illegal search and his dissembling during the first statement were used in the second statement, and that required the second statement be suppressed. United States v. Cordova, 829 F. Supp. 2d 1342 (N.D. Ga. 2011):<\/p>\n
There is a fundamental difference, however, between an illegal arrest and an illegal search and seizure of evidence. An arrest is not evidence of a crime; illegally seized evidence of a crime, on the other hand, can be (and in this case, was) used to convince a defendant that the government can convict him without a statement and to lead to a common-sense belief that confessing and cooperating are the only option. Were this Court to hold otherwise it would be left with the anomalous result that evidence obtained during an illegal search would be suppressed but then the existence and discovery of the evidence would be introduced by the statements of the Defendant obtained only as a result of the illegal search and seizure.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Defendant was \u201casked\u201d to come into a store with the officer saying \u201cwe need to talk.\u201d Two officers talked to him and several others were in the store investigating a crime. The evidence supports the district court\u2019s conclusion that his consent was voluntary. United States v. Guevara<\/a>, 448 Fed. Appx. 453 (5th Cir. 2011) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n
Defendant consented to a search of his hotel room for anything illegal, and officers seized two computers, thumb drives, and other storage electronic devices for a later search believing them connected to a crime, and this was not unreasonable. A search of the electronic devices on the premises was not possible. United States v. Chappell, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127588 (N.D. Ga. November 3, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading