December 24, 2013 4th Circuit published opinion

United States v Dargen 

Dargen moved to suppress a receipt found during a search of his apartment and a statement by a coconspirator. The district court denied his motions and admitted the evidence. Dargen was convicted by the jury. The panel affirmed. It held the receipt was properly seized as warrants are given a commonsense construction and the warrant here included indicia of occupancy. As the receipt arguably indicates Dargen lived at the apartment, and given courts’ desires to encourage warranted searches, the district court properly denied the motion. The panel also affirmed as to the statement was properly admitted under the rules of evidence as the codefendant exposed himself to criminal liability and the surrounding circumstances, including the statement being made to a fellow prisoner and the statement being consistent with the known details of the crime, support a finding of reliability. Finally, the panel rejected a Confrontation Clause challenge as the statement was not made in anticipation of trial and were thus nontestimonial.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s