Use of a flash bang device as an excessive search requiring suppression of the search is rejected. \u201cThe primary case relied upon by Defendants is Boyd v. Benton Co., 374 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 2004) which was a civil rights suit brought alleging excessive use of force by police officers. Though the Boyd court found that the use of the flash bang device was an excessive use of force, the question of admissibility of evidence in a criminal proceeding was not addressed.\u201d United States v. Honeycutt, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143512 (N.D. Ga. October 3, 2013).<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s generalized motion to suppress on numerous grounds is denied for lack of specificity. He didn\u2019t have the warrant affidavit when making the motion. United States v. Carraway, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143086 (S.D. Ill. October 3, 2013).*<\/p>\n
Defendant was speeding 85 in a 55 and was stopped. He told the officer that there was an emergency at his home with his elderly mother, and the officer followed him there. There was exigent circumstances from the entry, and defendant never objected to the officer following him into the house. United States v. Ruppert, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144054 (W.D. N.Y. June 14, 2013).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading