While hearsay at a suppression hearing is not the preferred method of the government presenting its case, the confrontation clause doesn\u2019t apply. On a motion for new trial even, the missing witness from the suppression hearing testified at trial the same as represented at the suppression hearing, and he was cross-examined. United States v. Spencer, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121945 (D. Minn. August 26, 2013).*<\/p>\n
The trash pull at defendant\u2019s apartment complex was not in a constitutionally protected area, citing Jardines, so there was no Fourth Amendment problem with it. United States v. Jackson<\/a>, 728 F.3d 367 (4th Cir. 2013).*<\/p>\n The information derived from the unconstitutional placement of a GPS on defendant\u2019s car was excised from the affidavit. There still was probable cause for the search under the independent source doctrine. United States v. Bush<\/a>, 727 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2013).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading