Podcast Episode Details
Back to Podcast Episodes
Kohberger and Diddy: How Judges Decide on Evidence Suppression (Part 1) (3/7/25)
In the case of Bryan Kohberger, Judge Steven Hippler denied the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants, including genetic information and digital data. The defense argued that the investigative methods violated Kohberger's constitutional rights; however, the court found that the evidence was lawfully obtained and that Kohberger did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the abandoned DNA and digital data accessed via the third-party doctrine..
This ruling is pertinent to Sean "Diddy" Combs' efforts to suppress evidence in his case. Both cases involve challenges to the admissibility of evidence based on alleged violations of constitutional rights during evidence collection. The Kohberger decision underscores the judiciary's reliance on established legal principles, such as the lack of reasonable expectation of privacy in certain contexts and the applicability of the third-party doctrine. These precedents suggest that, unless Combs can demonstrate that the evidence was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights and that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy, his motion to suppress may face similar challenges.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
021925-Order-Defendants-Motions-Suppress-Arrest-Warrants-Pensylvania-Apartment.pdf
Published on 2 months ago