Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained or Derived from Surveillance Under the FISA Amendments Act and Motion for Discovery

U.S. v. Jamshid Muhtorov 1:12-cr-00033-JLK (D. Colo.)

United States v. Shires, Karlosky, and Bond 1:19-cr-10043

United States v. Shires, Karlosky, and Bond 1:19-cr-10043

United States v. Shires, Karlosky, and Bond 1:19-cr-10043

Motions to suppress in U.S. v. Karlosky, et al

Presented by: Detective James Trainum (ret.), Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police Department; and Deja Vishny, Homicide Practice Group Coordinator and Deputy Training Director, Wisconsin State Public Defender

Presented by: Colin Fieman Assistant Federal Public Defender, Tacoma, WA; and Paul Ohm, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center

This webinar was supported in part by Grant No. 2013-MU-BX-K014 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Modern technology used by the police (including drones and mobile device forensic tools) and ever-changing drug laws make suppression hearings more challenging for the defense team. Advocates must invoke the Fourth Amendment in a world much different from the one in which the amendment was drafted. The defense attorney must create a well-developed record in support of a client’s claims. One method of developing the record is the use of experts to explain changing science and technology.

The police regularly target people of color by using pretextual vehicle and traffic violations – including illegal window tint and disobeying a crosswalk signal – to justify the initial interaction. The goal of police officers is to escalate the encounter with false allegations of the smell of marijuana or furtive movements to enable them to conduct a full-blown search. How can defense counsel make a motion to suppress evidence based upon an allegation of racial targeting?

In the latest editions of its interrogation manual, Reid and Associates adopted several positions that align with the views of its critics. In a nutshell, Reid and Associates directly or indirectly endorsed many measures that could help prevent false confessions. Defense attorneys seeking to suppress confessions can strengthen their arguments by noting when law enforcement officers ignore any of the recommendations in the Reid manual.

Scientifically Sound Approaches to Suppression in Eyewitness Identification Cases

The Manson v. Brathwaite test for the admissibility of challenged eyewitness identification evidence is flawed. As a result, courts routinely allow the admission of tainted identification evidence. Decided in 1977, Manson is not in accord with subsequent scientific research into eyewitness fallibility. Defense attorneys must adopt creative strategies to seek suppression and force courts to consider both the science and Manson’s flaws.

Brief of Amicus Curiae for the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of the Appellee.

Motion to Suppress Traffic Stop for Following Too Closely.

Motion to suppress memorandum on lack of necessity regarding wiretap evidence.

In The General Court of Justice Superior Court Division: State of North Carolina v. Farrar;

Memorandum of law in support of defendants motion to suppres evidence (wiretap)