Legal Topics

Criminal law — Search and seizure — Cell phone — Vehicle — Automobile exception — Motion to suppress fruits of search of defendant’s vehicle is granted where deputy was acting on instructions of detectives who received uncorroborated report that defendant would be helping murder suspect to flee country when deputy stopped defendant on roadway at night and seized his vehicle and its contents — Seizure supported only by naked suspicion that evidence of crime was to be found in vehicle is unlawful — Warrant — Affidavit in support of search warrant was insufficient to establish probable cause for search where affidavit was obtained after vehicle was impounded and included uncorroborated information known at time of seizure as well as information obtained as result of unlawful seizure and search of vehicle — Further, warrant failed to satisfy particularity requirement of Fourth Amendment where it authorized search for “any and all items of evidentiary value” — Good faith exception to Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule is not applicable where objectively reasonable officer would have known that affidavit supporting warrant was insufficient to establish probable cause for search — Warrant for search of cellphones found in vehicle is subject to same infirmities as warrant for search of vehicle where police had no knowledge of phones until they conducted unlawful search and seizure of vehicle and did not have probable cause to believe that phones, which were allegedly purchased in anticipation of murder suspect’s flight that never occurred, were actually used in connection with crime
Apr 06th, 2026 in by admin

Criminal law -- Search and seizure -- Cell phone -- Vehicle -- Automobile exception -- Motion to suppress fruits of search of defendant's vehicle is granted where deputy was acting on instructions of detectives who received uncorroborated report that defendant…


[ Click To Read The Rest ]

Criminal law — Driving under influence — Evidence — Urine test results — Consent — Defendant’s consent to urine test was freely given and tests conducted on sample were lawful where trooper advised defendant, who was driving semi-truck that overturned on highway, that he had observed signs of drug impairment, trooper asked defendant to provide urine sample, and defendant agreed to provide sample without any limiting instructions — Intrusion was not unwarranted where defendant provided only one sample — Motion to suppress is denied
Apr 03rd, 2026 in by admin

Criminal law -- Driving under influence -- Evidence -- Urine test results -- Consent -- Defendant's consent to urine test was freely given and tests conducted on sample were lawful where trooper advised defendant, who was driving semi-truck that overturned…


[ Click To Read The Rest ]