State v. Balduc

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that attempt to dispose of incriminating evidence is predictable and common response to illegal search and proper application of exclusionary rule requires evidence to be suppressed
• stating that “an affidavit may be used to cure a deficient warrant if the affidavit and warrant are physically attached to one another and the warrant refers to the affidavit and incorporates it by reference” (quotation omitted)
• addressing a search warrant that “contains no description of the things to be seized”
• considering whether the search warrant application accompanied the warrant when the search was executed
• suppressing evidence of defendant’s efforts to dispose of incriminating evidence that supported obstruction charge because the new criminal conduct “was foreseeable as a consequence of the illegal search, even if it was not the object of the search”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).